.com.unity Forums
  The Official e-Store of Shrapnel Games

This Month's Specials

Raging Tiger- Save $9.00
winSPMBT: Main Battle Tank- Save $5.00

   







Go Back   .com.unity Forums > Illwinter Game Design > Dominions 2: The Ascension Wars

Reply
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #1  
Old October 8th, 2003, 05:18 PM

PDF PDF is offline
Colonel
 
Join Date: Apr 2002
Location: Near Paris, France
Posts: 1,566
Thanks: 0
Thanked 0 Times in 0 Posts
PDF is on a distinguished road
Default Re: Damage Types: Pierce, Slash, and Crush

The proposed changes are neat in themselves and would be Ok for a RPG or small battles tactical system, but I don't find them very fit for Dominions...
It would create a lot of micro-optimizations issues and won't add much to the game. Let's keep Dominion a strategic level game with detailed yet simple combat mechanics (Attack+dice vs defense+dice, strength+wpn damage+dice vs prot+dice) rather than going into Combat Mission type discussion about the penetration of a hurled javelin at 23° angle under rain on a chainmail sloped 15° but previously repaired by a one-eyed dwarf having Earth 2 skill ...
Reply With Quote
  #2  
Old October 8th, 2003, 06:16 PM

DominionsFan DominionsFan is offline
Major
 
Join Date: Sep 2003
Location: Budapest, Hungary
Posts: 1,221
Thanks: 0
Thanked 1 Time in 1 Post
DominionsFan is on a distinguished road
Default Re: Damage Types: Pierce, Slash, and Crush

Quote:
Originally posted by PDF:
The proposed changes are neat in themselves and would be Ok for a RPG or small battles tactical system, but I don't find them very fit for Dominions...
It would create a lot of micro-optimizations issues and won't add much to the game. Let's keep Dominion a strategic level game with detailed yet simple combat mechanics (Attack+dice vs defense+dice, strength+wpn damage+dice vs prot+dice) rather than going into Combat Mission type discussion about the penetration of a hurled javelin at 23° angle under rain on a chainmail sloped 15° but previously repaired by a one-eyed dwarf having Earth 2 skill ...
I do not agree. Diversity and complexity is always better. Well maybe not for everyone.
__________________
Dominions 3. Wallpapers & Logos
-------

"Training is principally an act of faith. The athlete must believe in its efficacy: he must believe that through training he will become fitter and stronger, that by constant repetition of the same movements he will become more skillful."
Reply With Quote
  #3  
Old October 8th, 2003, 06:51 PM

licker licker is offline
Captain
 
Join Date: Sep 2003
Location: New Mexico
Posts: 990
Thanks: 13
Thanked 15 Times in 14 Posts
licker is on a distinguished road
Default Re: Damage Types: Pierce, Slash, and Crush

Quote:
Originally posted by DominionsFAN:
[/qb]
I do not agree. Diversity and complexity is always better. Well maybe not for everyone. [/QB][/quote]

Diversity and complexity are quite simply not always better, its the old issues of absolutly no absolutes

The pertinant questions about diversity and complexity for this specific system are what we are interested in though. It should be obvious to everyone that the proposed system adds both, the question then comes down to how much value do those additions contain. This is where the differing opinions come in.

Thanks for your answers HJ, I accept them for what they are, but they still don't quite give me enough specifics to be able to provide anymore feedback on the system. My main concern really is how will the new system be divided among the existing units (national and independant). If there are no changes to the existing units, other than to reclassify their weapons and armor, there will be holes in all the nations. You are right to say that adding more imbalance isn't necessarilly a bad thing, but at some point it is, it makes certain nations completely untenable in certain situations, and that holds for both SP and MP. I actually play very little MP myself, so most of my concern with any addition to a game lies on the SP side, and as I've said before, I don't see this system adding much to my game playing experience, honestly, I can see several ways to implement it that would really annoy me. Thats why I posed those questions, I need more information on the specifics of the implementation before I can really decide if I think the system adds enough to the game play to make it worth while.

Furthermore, I still think that if we concern ourselves more with unit (weapon) diversity than with immersion or combat realism (which are unimportant to me for the most part) then the mechanism already exists in Dom to tweek units and weapons to achieve more diversity. I understand and appreciate the arguments about greatswords being less effective against skeletons than mauls, but to me its a reletively unimportant distinction that doesn't need a major rework of the weapons system to solve. Personally I don't think it needs to be solved at all, as the existing mechanisms seem to work fine, but minor tweeks to the existing system seem more reasonable to me than a total change of that system.

Anyway, glad to see more people voicing their opinions on this subject, hopefully the pros will come up with a balanced, interesting, and workable system that everyone can get behind. Its the job of the cons to ensure that that is the end result though
Reply With Quote
  #4  
Old October 8th, 2003, 07:09 PM

HJ HJ is offline
Second Lieutenant
 
Join Date: Sep 2003
Posts: 483
Thanks: 0
Thanked 1 Time in 1 Post
HJ is on a distinguished road
Default Re: Damage Types: Pierce, Slash, and Crush

I have to go, so only a short answer this time around.

I don't think I can provide you with a more detailed explanation of the system. Even if I gave you all the stats for all weapons and armour, it won't be me who is going to do the coding and implementation, but the devs. We can discuss the nature of the system (will weapons only do one kind of damage, e.g.), but anything more detailed than that is impossible to ask from anyone else apart from the people who are actually making it work.

I also would like to address the "not adding enough to gameplay" argument. Well, not every addition has to be groundbreaking. If it adds to the gameplay, even a little, it has my vote, since it's going to make it a little bit more enjoyable (all caveats included). The strenght is in details, litlle things, that add up to be more than the sum of the parts. Hopefully...
Reply With Quote
  #5  
Old October 8th, 2003, 07:23 PM

licker licker is offline
Captain
 
Join Date: Sep 2003
Location: New Mexico
Posts: 990
Thanks: 13
Thanked 15 Times in 14 Posts
licker is on a distinguished road
Default Re: Damage Types: Pierce, Slash, and Crush

Quote:
Originally posted by HJ:
I have to go, so only a short answer this time around.

I don't think I can provide you with a more detailed explanation of the system. Even if I gave you all the stats for all weapons and armour, it won't be me who is going to do the coding and implementation, but the devs. We can discuss the nature of the system (will weapons only do one kind of damage, e.g.), but anything more detailed than that is impossible to ask from anyone else apart from the people who are actually making it work.

I also would like to address the "not adding enough to gameplay" argument. Well, not every addition has to be groundbreaking. If it adds to the gameplay, even a little, it has my vote, since it's going to make it a little bit more enjoyable (all caveats included). The strenght is in details, litlle things, that add up to be more than the sum of the parts. Hopefully...
I don't really need specific numbers, I want a more general treatment on a nation by nation basis (oh and indies too). More along the lines of what holes and how many will nations have.

As to additions to games... I agree not everything has to be ground breaking, but any addition should add more gameplay than it takes away entertainment from being too complex or adding to micro, or whatever. I'm not saying that that is necessarilly the case here, just that I can envision that being the case, in which case the addition to game play had better be closer to ground breaking than not.

Again, this is a fine idea, just that it hasn't been demonstrated how this improves game play outside of adding more numbers for people to crunch. Sure sometimes thats fun, and sometimes it adds to game play, just to me, as this system stands right now, it doesn't sound like more fun, and it doesn't seem to add much to game play. Obviously others have a different opinion from mine, and that's the entire point of this thread (now) to discuss those opinions and see if common ground can't be found.
Reply With Quote
  #6  
Old October 8th, 2003, 08:12 PM

Pocus Pocus is offline
Lieutenant Colonel
 
Join Date: Apr 2003
Location: Nuts-Land, counting them.
Posts: 1,329
Thanks: 1
Thanked 0 Times in 0 Posts
Pocus is on a distinguished road
Default Re: Damage Types: Pierce, Slash, and Crush

Quote:
Originally posted by PDF:
The proposed changes are neat in themselves and would be Ok for a RPG or small battles tactical system, but I don't find them very fit for Dominions...
It would create a lot of micro-optimizations issues and won't add much to the game. Let's keep Dominion a strategic level game with detailed yet simple combat mechanics (Attack+dice vs defense+dice, strength+wpn damage+dice vs prot+dice) rather than going into Combat Mission type discussion about the penetration of a hurled javelin at 23° angle under rain on a chainmail sloped 15° but previously repaired by a one-eyed dwarf having Earth 2 skill ...
with an hammer the dwarf, or without?

frankly, you already have this rock - paper - scissor effect in dominions. But many players (well initially, when they play more they start to see the details) dont see the triad. Some examples, which are totally overlooked when you discover the game, but which will be taken into account when you have played a bit:

- shielded infantry have an added bonus again missiles.
- flails and/or morning stars (dont remember if it is both, but I think so !) have a bonus against shields.
- against low morale units, it is better to have a longer reach weapon, even if it does less damages. On the contrary, against high morale units, shorter weapon, doing more damage will be more useful.

Thats just some examples on top of my head, but if you play Ulm, each infantry type differ slightly, but differ from an other, and will perform slightly better against a specific enemy. Perhaps you gain an overall 5% efficiency, but when you repeat the process on several subcomponent of the game, then generally you have more chance to win than your enemy

So the various damage types would not IMO be detrimental to the game. Many players would totally forget about these rules, as they already forget about some game mechanisms, and this dont detract them from enjoying the game. Then, when they know better the game, they start to take into account more and more parameters.

[ October 08, 2003, 19:19: Message edited by: Pocus ]
__________________
Currently playing: Dominions III, Civilization IV, Ageod American Civil War.
Reply With Quote
  #7  
Old October 8th, 2003, 09:24 PM

licker licker is offline
Captain
 
Join Date: Sep 2003
Location: New Mexico
Posts: 990
Thanks: 13
Thanked 15 Times in 14 Posts
licker is on a distinguished road
Default Re: Damage Types: Pierce, Slash, and Crush

Thanks for that post Pocus, it got at what I was trying (unsuccesfully I think) to say about the existing mechanisms existing in Domintions to handle the issue of diversity. I do think that the nubers on the weapons could be tweeked a bit to change your 5% to a 10% or something if that 'feels' better to most players, but for the most part those tweeks are not needed.

Something else lost in this discussion is that we don't even know how much has been changed stat wise in Dom2, so there may be more diversity 'built in'.

I conceed that if the more critical issues are game immersion and combat-mechanical realism, then larger change would be needed. However, I again question whether it is that important to make those changes *simply* for those reasons. The overall effect on gameplay is almost zero if you limit your efforts to addressing the Last two issues, the first is purely cosmetic, and the second is problematic to me in being able to pull it off without upsetting balances too much, or adding too much extraneous information.

Besides doesnt The Operational Art of War allow the user to customize all that kind of junk to his hearts content (or am I thinking of some other war game?) I don't think Dominions should bog itself down with those kinds of details as they don't feel like they belong in Dominions.
Reply With Quote
Reply

Bookmarks


Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is On

Forum Jump


All times are GMT -4. The time now is 02:08 AM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.1
Copyright ©2000 - 2025, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright ©1999 - 2025, Shrapnel Games, Inc. - All Rights Reserved.