Re: Damage Types: Pierce, Slash, and Crush
 

<font size="2" face="sans-serif, arial, verdana">This is why I thought the time-out was a good idea. Neither can I force them do implement it, nor can someone else tell them not to. Regardless of what we say, please do the work or please go easy on yourselves, it will matter little. An idea has been given, and that's pretty much what we can do - propose ideas. Unless we can mod as well, of course, but then it has nothing to do with the devs, or other people's opinions again.

Re: Damage Types: Pierce, Slash, and Crush
 

<font size="2" face="sans-serif, arial, verdana">If you are saying what I think you are saying, that the randomisation in the combat in dominions makes all units perform pretty much the same, you you are obviously way off base. If you have played the game it will be abundantly clear to you that there is a huge difference between the performance of a knight and a militia. The random dice enters comes into play in many situations so that it would be a very rare occurence indeed for 20 knights to get whipped by 20 militia, I even doubt it would happen very often that 20 knights route from 100 militia. The costs of most units reflect how they perform, there are occasional statistical abberations of course, but dominions isnt chess.
<font size="2" face="sans-serif, arial, verdana">I do not think that anyone considers tactical and strategic decisions as micromanagement per se, but it is not entirely obvious that the slash/crush/pierce additions would result in decisions that will have a meaningfull impact on gameplay that outweighs the additional micromanagement it would result in. This also pertains to the more general discussion on what level of abstraction combat should occur, it is not a given that the most realistic and complex combat system makes the best game. Dominions has allready gone quite a far in modelling induvidual combat compared to most games in the same genre, it is not necessarily a good thing to reduce the abstraction even further, although it might be. Other ideas in this vein has been to model hit locations etc., although hitlocations would not even potentionally add much of strategical or tactical decisions.

And besides the issue of potentional micromanagenment there is the difficulty of implementing it in a balanced way that works well with the rest of the current system.

Re: Damage Types: Pierce, Slash, and Crush
 

As I said, I won't pretend that I can argue with people who are actually involved in designing the game, and think that I know better than they do what their game should look like. I do however have an opinion on some things, and if they are a bit critical about certain aspects of the game, so be it, that doesn't mean that they are malicious in their intent.

<font size="2" face="sans-serif, arial, verdana">I am saying that by simply viewing the unit stats, you cannot have a good idea about that unit's preformance due to the proportionally huge random variable involved in it. I'm not particulary concerned about the obvious differences, such as the difference between an iron dragon and hoburg guards, but between a what seems to me a huge spectrum of very similar units in the middle range. From your example, it doesn't matter much whether the knight in question wields a broadsword or a morning star, while I would like to see that it does make at least some difference. I said several times that I am for distinctive shades of grey, not black and white and not uniform blur. What my perception is, and I emphasize the word "my", is that blur is prevalent, and I would rather see that it isn't. That's all.

<font size="2" face="sans-serif, arial, verdana">Now, this is purely up to your own discretion. I wasn't saying anything about difficulty of implementation, or time vs. benefit for gameplay. Mostly because I find it silly when people who won't be putting that time in speak in the name of devs: "it's going to take long to implement" or "it will only take a second" as if they're going to be the ones that are going to do it. If IW decides it's not worth the time, that is different than some end-user saying the same thing, and that's something I have a hard time digesting as an argument unless it comes from the person responsible for doing the work. Those who are will actually decide where that time will be spent anyway.

In short, if it was my game, I would welcome this suggestion. Since it's yours, you make the calls. I never disputed that. I was merely a)expressing my point of view and b)providing counterarguments for reasons I see as unfounded.

No hard feelings,
HJ

[ October 14, 2003, 19:47: Message edited by: HJ ]

Re: Damage Types: Pierce, Slash, and Crush
 

Morning Stars have bonus against shields BTW...
I think it was Morning Stars...

Re: Damage Types: Pierce, Slash, and Crush
 

<font size="2" face="sans-serif, arial, verdana">Actually it's not his game. It's my game. http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/icon10.gif He's just the brother.

Re: Damage Types: Pierce, Slash, and Crush
 

<font size="2" face="sans-serif, arial, verdana">Actually it's not his game. It's my game. http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/icon10.gif He's just the brother.</font><hr /></blockquote><font size="2" face="sans-serif, arial, verdana">Heh, well your brother is quite astute http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/icon7.gif

His Last paragraph summed up the reasons why an addition such as this system may or may not be a good thing for game play. And in the end, that's all that should really matter. Most people arn't going to care all that much if you called flails noodle splats and swords breadstickers, they can tell from looking at the statistics of them that they are different, and how they should be used to an advantage.

The facts are that there already is differentiation within the weapon system in Dom, what this system wants to do is expand and refine that differenttiation, and while there is nothing wrong with wanting to do that, the question still arises "what do you gain by doing so?" If the main gain is to satisfy some group that wants more 'realism' then its basically a wasted effort in terms of game play. As it is the system won't change much (at least from my understanding of it) other than to potentially clutter up the recruiting screen with more units, and create more potential imbalances. Sure if you spend the time and effort you can get the balance right, but the question is and always should be, what is the benefit of that time and effort? Seemingly the benefit is not nearly as great as some people make it out to be http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/icon12.gif

Re: Damage Types: Pierce, Slash, and Crush
 

<font size="2" face="sans-serif, arial, verdana">And I guess that it's going to be your time invested in making that? You'll be only reaping benefits anyway. Don't worry, the implementation is not goign to be the part of the homework, only utilizing the end result. http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/icon12.gif

This is like sending subliminal Messages to the devs, instead of making an argument. And if I start saying "it's a piece of cake", it would be the same thing. The devs invest time where they see fit. A lot of things can be labelled as "sorry, it wasn't worth your time" hypothetically, but who are we to tell them that anyway?

[ October 14, 2003, 20:33: Message edited by: HJ ]

Re: Damage Types: Pierce, Slash, and Crush
 

I think the most IW should do if they bother with this at all is implement a damage type possibility for modders...because it seems based on this and the poll that this isn't a unanimous decision by the community, but rather a few players who want it...and that's a fine place for modding to come in. http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/icon7.gif
If you modders balance it right we all might play Damage Types Dominions 2...and if not I'm more than happy with the current system. A spear is still not even close to equivalent to an axe or a sword. Small modifiers count for quite a bit.

Re: Damage Types: Pierce, Slash, and Crush
 

Well the Dominions system is nice enough I must admit that too, but this sytem is even better.
Period.

Re: Damage Types: Pierce, Slash, and Crush
 

<font size="2" face="sans-serif, arial, verdana">And I guess that it's going to be your time invested in making that? You'll be only reaping benefits anyway. Don't worry, the implementation is not goign to be the part of the homework, only utilizing the end result. http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/icon12.gif

This is like sending subliminal Messages to the devs, instead of making an argument. And if I start saying "it's a piece of cake", it would be the same thing. The devs invest time where they see fit. A lot of things can be labelled as "sorry, it wasn't worth your time" hypothetically, but who are we to tell them that anyway?[/QB]</font><hr /></blockquote><font size="2" face="sans-serif, arial, verdana">Actually yes, it is my time. In as much as we have all already spent time discussing this. In as much as once (if) the new system is out we'll have to spend the time to learn it. In as much as we will all spend time critiqueing it during and after development. Besides who's to say that your 'benefits' are the same as mine? If I see a new system as a threat to my enjoyment of the game I'll be sure to point that out. Now you'll note I wasn't trying to speak for everyone, or even a subsection of everyone, we are all only speaking for ourselves, and while that is normally understood, occasionally its useful to point it out again http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/icon7.gif

I don't see what your bit about subliminal Messages has to do with this discussion anyway. The argument against inclusion of such a system is that it adds needless complexity without a big payoff for that complexity. I suppose by saying that I am also telling them that I don't think it's worth their time to make the effort, but I hardly think that's a subliminal thought, it should be pretty obvious. Furthermore for you to say that it would be 'a piece of cake' (not that you are actually) would be incredibly disingenuous, as most everyone agrees that it would be far from 'a piece of cake'.

Finally we are the paying customers, it is our right (some think its their duty) to tell the devs what we want or don't want, what we like or dislike. In the end its up to the devs to listen or not to the multiple points of view, but I'm sure that they appreciate all the feedback they get, even the occasionally surly replys http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/icon12.gif

Is there some actual point to your attempts to get the anti crowd to stop putting forth their side of the discussion? Other than the obvious one that is... http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/icon12.gif From what I've seen lately there isn't much new coming from either side really, that's why I suggested a while back that people start trying to encourage the devs to somehow make this damage type thing moddable, that should shut everyone up http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/icon7.gif