Skills that break armor, why?

R14 marked some changes in the Blades combat tree. Here's a quote from the R14 instructions:

To my eyes all of combat has an emphasis on DPS, not just blades. But fine, Blades will be the definitive DPS combat tree. What does this leave for other combat trees though? Apparently Bludgeons will be able to damage the armor and weapons of your opponent.

Although this is nothing new and has been in the design of the game for a very long time. It's interesting for me to attempt to consider WHY we're doing this. Here are few thoughts on breaking or damaging your opponents stuff:

1. If you damage an NPC's armor or weapons, won't they be that much worse off when you try to loot them?
2. If you damage a players armor and weapons, will that really change who wins the immediate fight? I don't think it will (on average). I think it will just give your opponent a higher repair bill.
3. If a combat tree like Blades has more DPS skills and you're using bludgeons to damage their weapons and armor, is this balanced?

I really struggle with the concept that we would have so many skills devoted to damaging armor and weapons. The point of fighting is to win the battle and I'm not sure I see how damaging the weapons and armor are helping a player accomplish that.

I will say this, it's pretty cool sounding! But in practice, I don't think it's reasonable to see this as a valuable mechanic in a combat system where DPS is perhaps the only important factor to winning and losing.

 

I don't think Bludgeon is completely balanced around damaging the opponent's weapons and armor. That would be its ability to stun or otherwise lower the attacker's damage, therefore lowering the opponents DPS. This will make it a great support skill.

Also, you need to check the Release Instructions. Break Armor/Weapon doesn't damage items:

 

Thanks for showing me that. I read right over it!

Ok, so we're back to the DPS war.

The OP is wrong then.

So instead, what I should've written about is how within the DPS war of this combat system, it doesn't make a lot of sense to use debuffs if you can use direct attacks. Does it?

I mean, Riposte and Parry don't win the round for you. Really only direct attacks do. Whenever I fight players or NPC's....I'm just clicking on as many direct attacks as I can. Other than kiting...what else is anyone doing that's different than that?

 

Although as mentioned above in R14 it has changed to debuffs - I think I prefer the original. As to to why stated earlier - reducing durability reduces the effectiveness already. Your armor protects less, your weapon does less damage as durability falls below a certain point - does it not. So as pointed out the goal is to defeat your opponent. Reducing the effectiveness of their equipment to the point where it begins to be harder and harder to use it means at a certain point they either change weapons or retreat. Yes it lowers the quality of the item you loot (if PVE) but is a factor in choosing that weapon style. Also as you begin to fight harder encounters they often have a caster who can heal - so if the armor begins to protect less then it becomes harder to keep up the heals. A debuff will only ever reduce the impact by a set amount. Hastening the durability loss means if the battle wears on long enough that the armor will offer zero protection. It is debatable as to which would be the quickest to defeat the opponent. There are other factors as well. In a PvP scenario (for those engaging in PvP not all will) it means that again at some point through all the heals and attrition of mana, health and durability the durability method will lend itself to a victory at some point while debuffs could lead to a stand off - again set amount of temporary loss - regained after a few seconds or tactical retreat.
Further it impacts encumbrance decisions - do you carry the extra weapon and shield or forgo it to carry more loot.
To each their own.

 

As it was in R13? No, the only thing durability did was make it so when it "broke" it did nothing. Reduced durability itself did not affect anything. So all durability damage did was punish the opponent by making them pay more for repair, and possibly breaking an item during combat so they had to switch.

I prefer the method in R14, as it actually provides a benefit for using these skills in combat.

 

Considering that blundgeons IRL actually DO damage armor.. I don't think it's unreasonable for them to do so. In fact if they didn't something would seem off.

Rather than switching to debuffs (which doesn't make any sense if they wear off).. they should actually make the skill work properly. That is.. you hit.. you cause damage. It shouldn't require a special move.

Granted that damage needs to be balanced. Most stuff isn't going to break in one or two hits.

 

I don't disagree with anything you said. But then the OP would be correct again, and I'd have to ask "why are we doing this?" Because in relationship to the other combat skills, it's unbalanced. Combat only cares about DPS, so if you have skills that don't do DPS, you're not going to win in pvp and you'll be less efficient in pve.

 

I think the problem is that the skills are differentiated.

IMO, all blades skills should do some bleeding damage, since blades cut through the skin and bleed you. And in the same way, all bludgeon skills should have increased armor damage. But a skill specifically for that? Yea, its a bit odd.

 

Then.. balance it.

Bludgeons crush things.. including armor.. but that also includes soft and squishy targets. So by all means have a debilitating debuff or some kind that makes sense.. but still do damage.

If blades bleed.. then perhaps bludgeons should 'disable'.. target someone's joints with a mace and that appendage is not going to function at 100% for a good while.

 

I think bludgeon simply should ignore 50% of the armour or so

 

There might actually be a case for that for light armor.. but it wouldn't work at all for heavy plate. However, the damage reduction of different armors basically simulates the same thing.

 

What if each armor type granted protection from various types of attack?

Cloth = No Additional Protection
Leather = ?????
Mail = Protection from Puncture
Plate = Protection from Slashing Weapons

Note: Protection means reduced, not invincible.


Bowen I'll let you outline it if you like. You'd probably do a better job of it than me. But what I like is that there's more to combat than just pressing the thrust button and putting all your points in strength. You may be using a really bad weapon against whatever armor type your opponent has and that might make you significantly less effective.

 

Cloth should have protection against bludgeons, Drocis. You can't really destroy cloth by hitting it with a hammer. Leather, too.

 

Really, armor and weapons go through durability so quickly already that having skills to increase that is pretty harsh. Once I have a chance to level some, I'll try to play with blades vs. blunts.

 

I don't think it works that way. I'm talking about protection from the damage, not protection for the armor.

If someone hits you with a giant hammer and you're only wearing cloth, then you're going to take a lot of....you're doing to die.

 

Oh ok I thought you were talking about reduced armor damage.

 

There was another thread a while back where we were also talking about things like fire damage on cloth vs. plate. DOT vs straight damage.

 

I find armor, armor degradation, and armor repair to be the worst aspect of the game as is, it all needs significant work in my opinion. Everything from realism to functionality needs work.

 

Honestly, what I would've done is add a variable on each weapon the determines a bonus to damaging different types of armor.. allowing a weapon's effectiveness in damanging armor to be essentally weapon based rather than class based. An axe for example.. is going to cause more damage than a standard mace.. of course that would require tweaking based on individual weapon.. lot more work.

Mail is actually very good vs slash.. plate is good vs all types of weapons..

In principle I agree that weapon vs armor should vary. Right now though I think I'd have to dwell on it a little more.

The problem with any combat in an RPG is you want it to feel realistic without it actually being realistic. In reality it doesn't matter how tough you are or what armor your wearing or how many HP you have.. one hit from ANY weapon in the right spot can kill. Obviously that would not be entertaining so we can't do that. So we have to get our believability from other things.

If we're JUST talking about armor damage..

Cloth and leather would be damaged most by slashing.
Mail by piercing
Plate by bludgeons

By extention those would also be what causes the most damage to characters I should think.

In terms of protecting your character I'd probably go this way..

Leather does better vs piercing
Mail does better vs slashing
Plate does equally well vs everything

Cloth doesn't really protect at all unless enchanted or padded. Padded would be weak vs bludgeon but probably equal vs pierce & slash.

For clarification I'm not suggesting for example that mail is better vs slashing than plate or that leather is better than plate vs piercing etc.

 

I agree. Just normal degradation is much too fast.. at least as of R13.