Re: Damage Types: Pierce, Slash, and Crush
 

<font size="2" face="sans-serif, arial, verdana">All the units have descriptions this time?

Re: Damage Types: Pierce, Slash, and Crush
 

<font size="2" face="sans-serif, arial, verdana">Nothing wrong with more ideas. More is more!

Actual work is not possible at the moment. The game will go gold soon and only small and very useful changes can be made. We don't want to risk adding new bugs now.

Ideas on the other hand can be stored in the Acashic Records and put to use at a later date.

Ergo: keep bothering us. http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/icon12.gif </font><hr /></blockquote><font size="2" face="sans-serif, arial, verdana">This system what Saber has mentioned should be implented in a later patch? I really like the idea. http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/icon7.gif
Ok ok maybe in an official add-on not in a patch since this will be a huge update.... http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/icon10.gif

Re: Damage Types: Pierce, Slash, and Crush
 

I've got nothing against this idea per se, but it does seem to be adding a bit more complexity for complexities sake.

What is the true value of making this addition? I've reread Sabers post a couple of times, and I'm passingly familiar with the mechanics of such a system from other games, but I just don't see it as making Dom a better game. I see it adding another level of micro that I personally don't want. Now I have to keep track of what units have what weapon, and unless the gfx for a unit with a maul vs. a greatsword, vs. a mace is really easy to see... well its more of a pain than anything else. Yes I do realize that you can select all 'similar' units easilly enough, but still, I don't see that this adds that much to the gameplay.

Anyway, different nations will always have use for independant units, if for no other reason than that they don't have enough resources to produce only nationals. As cash tightens up this can change, but the location of the recruitment can also be very important. I don't want to see this mechanism further complicated by making the 'optimal' choice of HI a necessary (or more necessary) evil.

Maybe I should rephrase my concern like this. Dom is already a game with a near overwhelming amount of information to process, do we really want to go down the road of increasing this? Its a question that has to be dealt with quite seriously I think, as there is such a thing as too much, and it can begin to detract from the overall quality of the game. The key conecpt for any massive additions (like this would be) is what is the benefit to game play vs. the cost. In this case I think the benefit is small, and the cost is reletivly large, to me its adding micro for micro's sake, and that is simply not a good thing for a game like Dom.

Re: Damage Types: Pierce, Slash, and Crush
 

Great idea!

There is also another similar system in a relatively unknown RPG called Siege of Avalon, which attributes points of several types of damage for each weapon. So, for example, a sword would have 1-10 slashing, 1-4 piercing and 1-2 crushing. The armours have protection for all types of damage as well, so an armour could have something like 8 prot. for slashing, 3 for piercing nad 3 for crushing. Therefore, if you hit that armour with the sword, you would do 1-2 points of damage from slashing, 1 damage from piercing, and no damage from crushing, resulting in 2-3 damage overall that went through the armour. The system is a bit more complicated than that in fact (you have invulnerability rating on armour expressed in numbers, i.e. an amount of damage that it would stop completely, and a protection rating expressed in percentages, i.e. the percentage of damage above the invulnerability that would also be stopped), but that's the basic jist of it.

And yes, I know this would be even harder to implement, but this is a suggestion thread for ideas, right? http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/icon7.gif

Re: Damage Types: Pierce, Slash, and Crush
 

<font size="2" face="sans-serif, arial, verdana">Amen(or Ooom) to that.
Also, we have nations with very litle variation on their weapons(Caelum would have mostly piercing and slashing on couple of units, Man slashing and piercing), just send units that has resistance against the nations most common weapon type and *BLAM* the nation is pooped.

Cool, and even nice idea, but no micro for micros sake.

Re: Damage Types: Pierce, Slash, and Crush
 

I might add that if what you are really after are better differentiators between otherwise quite similar units (though I don't have a big problem with the similar units, I mean there are over 1000 units, you can't make them all *that* much different from each other) a more reasonable approach is to simply change some of the statistics for the weapons that they currently have. Changing the resource cost(down) would be a big incentive on most units, as would tweeking the length of some weapons (expanding the length scale a bit would help here).

These are simpler changes that could achieve the same end result, and be done much more easilly than adding an entirely new damage and resistance system.

Re: Damage Types: Pierce, Slash, and Crush
 

<font size="2" face="sans-serif, arial, verdana">All the units have descriptions this time?</font><hr /></blockquote><font size="2" face="sans-serif, arial, verdana">Man, do they have descriptions!!! http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/icon10.gif

Re: Damage Types: Pierce, Slash, and Crush
 

On the other hand, you have zounds of units that are all too similar to each other (DomI Ulm roster, e.g.), and you might end up using only one type, and never bother with building the rest.

Diversity is good, in my eyes, and I like complexity - the more the better, and it keeps me interested in game for longer.

Re: Damage Types: Pierce, Slash, and Crush
 

<font size="2" face="sans-serif, arial, verdana">All the units have descriptions this time?</font><hr /></blockquote><font size="2" face="sans-serif, arial, verdana">Man, do they have descriptions!!! http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/icon10.gif </font><hr /></blockquote><font size="2" face="sans-serif, arial, verdana">Pythian Legionaires didn't have, Atlantian Great Mother(sp?) and Dwarven Smiths of Vanheim lost their descriptions when they became prophets, and i think few other units missed their descriptions too, so:
Do all the units have descriptions this time?

Re: Damage Types: Pierce, Slash, and Crush
 

Uh huh, I dont think that this would add that amount of micro...In fact this would add lot more strategical diversity, which is always better.
I think that this sytem would be nice to have, and if the devs want to make an addon pack or something similar, this might be a great addition in it.