[quote=“Coolthulhu, post:38, topic:12465”]Would be better to get rid of divisions and just increase the granularity.
Making odd dexterity better instead of having even dexterity be better doesn’t fix anything.[/quote]
Sorry if I was unclear, but in the current system even and odd dexterity are useful.
Even dexterity starts out higher than odd dexterity compared to its investment. 8 dex = 4, 0 Dodge = 0.5, so Even Dexterity starts at “5”.
Odd dexterity starts out lower than even dexterity. 9 dex = 4.5. Dodge = 0.5, so Odd Dexterity costs more, but also starts at 5.
At the same time, odd Dexterity progresses earlier, so 1 Dodge skill makes them increase to 6 Dodge at level 1, while Even takes until level 2 to catch up. Finally, at level 10 dodge the system stabilises with both actors at 5.5+4/4.5 giving them 10 in a dodge.
This means that having an odd number in a stat makes you consistently ahead for the majority of the game, while even is constantly playing catch up until the very end, when the two equalise.
On the other hand I doubt it would break anything, so sure, let’s try no/div.
1D100 + {3D[Per + Aim] + [Per + Aim]} - {3D[Dex + Dodge] + [Dex + Dodge]}
Wesker always hits Trainwreck, and scores over 100 65% of the time.
Trainwreck hits Wesker 36% of the time, and scores over 50 1% of the time.
Trainwreck hits “Zombie Dog” (3D2+2) 93.5% of the time, 50+ 44.5% of the time.
Yep, formula still works fine (everything else must fall within these two extremes, and these extremes aren’t problematic), so let’s go with that if you prefer it. It might need bigger bonuses and penalties, but that’s hardly difficult.
Dividing dodge by attacks makes it horrible against fast opponents: if a critter has 2 attacks per turn, the second one would be significantly more likely to hit.
Well, yes. Just like in reality, if you’re fighting a big cat, you’re probably going to be busily keeping its jaws off your throat, while its claws are going to be raking your stomach. I could suggest “try not to fight big cats”, but that’s perfectly logical. Any animal with multiple attacks should be attacking with the main attack first, of course.
But let’s run the maths. I don’t think it’s actually that bad in our current system.
Player (skill 5, Dexterity 10) is fighting two skeleton dogs (skill 2).
First dog has a 15% chance of missing, 36% chance of 50+, 26% chance of 60+, 16% chance of 70+, 6% of 80+.
Second dog has a 5% chance of missing, 47% chance of 50+, 37% chance of 60+, 27% chance of 70+, 16% of 80+, 6% chance of 90+.
Because this system isn’t very threshold-y, the effect of halving their dodge isn’t very extreme, and it doesn’t get much worse:
Third dog has a 1% chance of missing, 50.6% chance of 50+.
Fourth dog has a 52.5% chance of 50+.
I think this may even be using the version of the formula that uses Dodge/2 + Dex/2, which is harsher on the player than the one above, but yeah, either way the example shows what I’m talking about.
Being swarmed or outsped still sucks. That’s good, since this is a zombie game, and zombie games are about large hordes of zombies tearing hopelessly outnumbered survivors apart, but, in effect, because this system is more linear, the results are more linear too.
It’s also pretty thematic for small obnoxious attackers to distract and interfere with a victim while a large enemy sets up to attack. Kind of makes me want to see a monster based around that, like a tentacle fiend whose jaw is surrounded by three tentacle creatures that do little damage but drag victims up to the hard hitting maw.
Additionally, there could be some difference between dexterity and skill here. For example, making dexterity not lose its value with extra attempted dodges.
I like this as a possible, but if I might suggest a bold and radical alternative, how about the other way around?
High Dexterity = Good against single targets because you’re more flexible.
That won’t help much against multiple targets, but knowing how to dodge so that your enemies get in each others way might.
Much easier to balance around stats that way, right?
Mixed feelings about moving accuracy to perception.
This would make melee fighters need to pick a specialization: attacks or dodges.
This in turn would mean that light armors would lose usefulness.
But zombies have bad dodging skills, so most characters would pick dodge anyway, then suffer when a fast dodgy enemy (wasp or manhack) attacked them.
Remember that I’ve shown the absolute minimum in my examples here. If you want to check probabilities yourself to check me, try somewhere like http://anydice.com/.
Because I’ve shown you this is viable even if you have 0 Stat, 0 Skill fighting against a 15 Stat, 10 Skill superbeing, I can safely say your concern here is unnecessary.
Melee fighters do not need to pick a specialisation - the system doesn’t penalise low stats enough.
The difference against a manhack (20 Dodge) with a 4 Stat and 14 stat character with 0 skill is a 40% miss, 11% 50+ vs a 16% miss, 36% 50+. So 4 in ten vs 1.6 in ten, and 1.1 in ten vs 3.6 in ten.
So:
1: A player can specialise in dexterity and dodge.
2: A player can specialise in perception and accuracy.
3: A player can specialise in being able to deal and take a lot of damage.
1: Dodges more and takes less damage, but kills opponents more slowly, and therefore has more opportunities to get hurt.
2: Hits more often and kills enemies quicker so fewer opportunities to be attacked, but dodges less often and generally takes more damage.
3: Doesn’t dodge OR hit more often, but they can survive more hits, and kill in fewer hits,.
Tradeoffs. Each one wishes that they had something each of the others gets, and those who put 2 points into each stat will feel the benefits of generalisation.
Crits from intelligence would be weird.
It would spread melee combat rather thin - one stat for every aspect of it.
It would give intelligence a long-term application, but nerf "crit combat" (especially unarmed). Though it can be overpowered at times, as there are no resistances to status effects.
Though it doesn't make much sense, as striking weak spots isn't rocket surgery.
Ever heard the phrase “fight smarter, not harder”? Intellect isn’t just about wearing spectacles and doing sums, it’s about quick thinking, coolness under pressure, split second analysis and knowing what a uvula is and when it’s best to stab it (always). Murder takes brains, as any cephalopod will tell you.
Striking weak spots may not be rocket surgery, but what’s the cliché archetype for the guy who’s hitting vital points? The Cunning Rogue. The smart guy who fights dirty. The coolheaded genius who’s just waiting for a single opening to finish the entire combat in a single, devastating strike. It’s even generally the smart guy in zombie movies who figures out that you’re supposed to shoot them in the head.
In the end, though, meh, that’s fluff. Nobody would really care or argue much, intelligence being tied to “clever” damage shows up in a lot of systems (including Cata already), so we can justify it easily if it makes for a better game, and to decide that, I’m of the opinion we’d need to establish what our damage system is up to first.
For now, let’s explore your threshold damage idea, since it works great, makes sense, is very easy to balance (just change your threshold) and ties in very neatly with the rest of the thread where we talked about damage types.
0-50: Scratch damage. You didn’t quite miss, but you didn’t get a solid hit. You deal a small amount of damage. At 10, 20, 30 and 40 you deal 20/40/60/80% damage, and have 20/40/60/80% your usual chance of X.
So every time you hit your target with:
Cutting weapon: Chance to cause bleeding if you deal damage.
Piercing weapon: Chance to bypass armour (decrease coverage by 50%). Chance to cause bleeding if you deal damage.
Bashing weapon: Chance to reverberate, dealing some of its damage through armour by striking a point without a lot of “give”,
Burning weapon: Chance to cause temporary blindness. Chance to cause a burn. Chance to ignite a bodypart.
This could vary by weapon, but let’s start out assuming a 1 in 5 chance. Intelligence adds 1% chance of it happening, and is divided or multiplied by the result as well.
Jack is using a rapier, which has a 20% chance of avoiding armour if it hits normally. He has 14 intelligence, giving him a 34% chance normally.
Jack is fighting a manhack. He rolls an 18. Minor damage: He deals 40% of his damage - “8”. The manhack’s metal armour can stop 10 damage, so it stops this entirely.
40% of 34% is 13.6%, however. Jack rolls a 90 and succeeds. Manhacks are a monster, which have 100% coverage, so Jack has a 50/50 chance of ignoring its armour entirely. Jack rolls a 78. Success! He bypasses the manhack’s armour and deals 8 damage to it directly. It takes all 8 damage, damaging it. Robots can’t bleed, however, so the manhack survives, smoking heavily (and potentially less mobile from the damage to its motor) as it loops around to retaliate.
Later, skill 0 Jack learns some skills. He adds his now 10 melee skill to chances as well, so his base chance becomes 44%, (and he deducts his piercing weapon skill from the base time per attack, so both skills play a role in making Jack a better swordsman beyond just damage and accuracy).
Now we can certainly still have critical hits and techniques on the upper end of the scale too:
Jack lands a critical hit (75+) on a Lobsterman, dealing 50% more damage, and increasing the chance of regular effects by 50%. It also gives a 10% base chance of a Critical Tech over and above the damage.
The same basic effects happen:
Bypass Armour: 50% bonus chance over 44% is 66%. Jack has a 1 in 3 chance of completely ignoring the lobserman’s absurdly thick armour.
Piercing Damage: Cause Minor Bleeding if they take damage: Again, 44% becomes 66%. If Jack deals any damage through the Lobsterman’s armour, it has a 2/3 chance of causing the lobsterman to bleed every turn. If the target was another human they would have the chance of causing an injury, depending how severe the damage was.
Apply Critical Technique: 10% damage modified by Jack’s crit bonus is 34%. 1 crit in 3, Jack may deal one of the Critical Techs he knows: Impale, Riposte, and Highlander Special.
So finally we have #4: A player can specialise in Intellect. They will not hit hard, they will not hit often, and their damage and survivability aren’t the best, but when they do hit they are more likely to cripple or maim their target, hindering their ability to fight back and killing them faster over time.
This gives four viable choices to melee characters.
We can’t quite give four viable choices to ranged characters in the same way, but we could potentially give then something to benefit from each stat as well:
Strength: More damage and range when firing bows. Throw items further and deal more damage.
Dexterity: Recover from being jostled faster, throw items more accurately, reduce the chance that incoming ranged damage is severe.
Perception: Aim non-throwing weapons more accurately (how flexible you are has very little to do with using a bow and arrow well, let alone a handgun).
Intelligence: Increase chance of dealing critical ranged damage against targets (lead the target better, pick your shots better, determine parabolic firing arcs better, all work together to hit more vulnerable spots, opposed by your targets ability to mislead you).
If that works, then there’d be less “this character is designed purely for melee”, and more “this character is good at certain things and bad at others”.
Thoughts?
