Re: Damage Types: Pierce, Slash, and Crush
 

Dont worry Saber, I like your idea! http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/icon10.gif http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/tongue.gif

Re: Damage Types: Pierce, Slash, and Crush
 

sure, Spec Ops #18 ... http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/icon12.gif

Re: Damage Types: Pierce, Slash, and Crush
 

<font size="2" face="sans-serif, arial, verdana">But he has "only" 3000+ Messages...

Re: Damage Types: Pierce, Slash, and Crush
 

But they're so flavorful. http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/icon12.gif

Re: Damage Types: Pierce, Slash, and Crush
 

<font size="2" face="sans-serif, arial, verdana">I can't see your avatar for some reason. So I'm off the hook.

Please explain to me why an army consisting of pikemen, archers and lance-wielding knights should be penalised as being unbalanced, cos my puny mind can't grasp it.

Re: Damage Types: Pierce, Slash, and Crush
 

Heh, don't worry Sandman, Sabre is just testy cuz his/her/its idea wasn't accepted by everyone immediately as being the greatest thing ever http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/icon12.gif

And no, I don't care if you are male female or neither, just as I don't care which one you think I am http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/icon7.gif

Re: Damage Types: Pierce, Slash, and Crush
 

Honestly, I don't quite think it's a wonderful idea myself. It fits in the Category of ideas that could work out well...or could work out poorly and would take a while to implement either way.

As I hope Saber Cherry doesn't actually have a saber. http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/tongue.gif If the being known as Saber Cherry is armed I might need to start running.

Re: Damage Types: Pierce, Slash, and Crush
 

<font size="2" face="sans-serif, arial, verdana">LMAO and why do you care about him? http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/icon10.gif http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/shock.gif </font><hr /></blockquote><font size="2" face="sans-serif, arial, verdana">because PvK made the proportion mod for SE IV, meaning he can put hundred of hours in tools for a game he likes. The more quality gamers we have for Doms II, the better the chances to have great third parties utils and mods.</font><hr /></blockquote><font size="2" face="sans-serif, arial, verdana">That and check his member #!
He is so long here, hes almost a celebrity around these forums. http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/icon12.gif

Re: Damage Types: Pierce, Slash, and Crush
 

The more I think more about the idea, the less I like it ...
In fact the distinction between "crush" "slash" and "pierce" damage is quite artificial, weapons apply kinetic forces on a more or less large area, that's all ! Additionnaly it's not very applicable to weapons such as giant's swords, animal bites, elemental damage (unless you add resistance to elements as specific armor values), etc...The concept does not work well either to simulate shield defense.

Overall I prefer the way Dom manages it now, with some weapons/damage types being "armor piercing" or "armor negating", others having bonuses against shields (flails), but with a single damage value, and armor having a single protection values with armor pieces just adding to one another.

Re: Damage Types: Pierce, Slash, and Crush
 

<font size="2" face="sans-serif, arial, verdana">No... it's force over an area, force over a line, and force at a point.

For normal, human-wielded weapons, you can (making broad generalizations) also say this:

Crush: High momentum, low kinetic energy, area impact.
Slash: Mid momentum, mid KE, sharp line impact.
Pierce: Low momentum, high KE, sharp point impact.

There are exceptions - a lance acts as though it has high KE and high momentum, for example - but these categories work pretty well for normal weapons... and the ones that don't fit perfectly could still be dual-typed. Monster damages have to be shoe-horned, or a "Generic" damage type could be used for things that just don't fit very well.

As for archers, pikeneers, and knights being unbalanced... yep:) Faced with skeletal hordes, you'd be toast, unless the archers had backup maces (like crossbowmen sometimes do) or the knights used blunt secondary weapons. Faced with death-by-zombie, you'd better hope the archers and knights had sword backups, because stabbing and shooting zombies has little effect, regardless of what you may have learned playing DOOM.

Facing that army with living people, I'd use swordsmen with tower shields... another strong anti-pierce unit. Their only fear would be cavalry trample, and DOMII knights don't get trample:) Virtually immune to arrows, and hopefully able to get inside the pike killing zone by deflecting the piercing tips with shields (pikes are long and clumsy, while shields give better leverage), 2 parts of the army would be rendered ineffectual. The knights would have an upper hand based on the hooves, secondary weapons, and heavy armor, but tower shields should be helpful versus lances as well. And at any rate, knights are expensive.

Arioch: I have no saber, but having mastered neko-fu, my hands can crush, pierce, and slash. If only I could make them length 5, I'd be a perfect warrior... but I don't really have to worry too much, as my powered battle armor and Awe +10 keep me pretty safe:)

-Cherry

P.S.

Even though from my descriptions, it sounds like I want my swordsmen to slice through pikeneers like my knife-fist does through the butter that composes mere mortals, I seriously want the modifiers to be moderate. As in, overall, the tower-shielded swordsmen would be able to face down 20% more pikeneers or archers than before, due to the pierce-bonus of a tower shield, assuming that a tower shield gets a pierce bonus.

[ October 13, 2003, 19:38: Message edited by: Saber Cherry ]