Print

Please login or register.
1 Hour 1 Day 1 Week 1 Month Forever
Login with username, password and session length

[Tormy]

Also Bronze's use in weaponry is not of equal value to its use of armor.

I cannot remember which it was.

So Bronze shouldn't retain a 75, 75 combat and armor value

I don't know...bronze is better than iron but worse than steel. So if the "strength" of iron is 100 and the "stength" of steel is 133 in the game right now, the "strength" of bronze must be between those 2 values.
PS. This "bronze problem" has been brought up many times already on the forum. 

[Random832]

Obviously the damage modifier should be incorporated into the metal usage tags rather then being a blanket value, [ARMOR:50] and [WEAPON:75] and [AMMO:100] are very obvious improvements to the raws.  I'd even split WEAPON into the three damage types cut/pierce/bludgeon so you can make metals better for certain weapons rather then others.

You mean like how Lead is used in Maces but would otherwise be considered a terrible choice of material for anything else?

Arguably maces/hammers/etc should use the material _density_ rather than any damage percentage modifier.

I also have another idea, mainly for armor, relating to material density and strength-to-weight, but that's for another thread. Using material properties rather than an arbitrary percentage modifier has merit for weapons too of course.

[Marlowe]

PS. This "bronze problem" has been brought up many times already on the forum. 

And yet has not been fixed.

[i are not good with compu]

Obviously the damage modifier should be incorporated into the metal usage tags rather then being a blanket value, [ARMOR:50] and [WEAPON:75] and [AMMO:100] are very obvious improvements to the raws.  I'd even split WEAPON into the three damage types cut/pierce/bludgeon so you can make metals better for certain weapons rather then others.

You mean like how Lead is used in Maces but would otherwise be considered a terrible choice of material for anything else?

Arguably maces/hammers/etc should use the material _density_ rather than any damage percentage modifier.

Then you have people running around with literal golden hammers.  Density should be taken into account, but it should be offset by malleability and weight.

[Random832]

Then you have people running around with literal golden hammers.  Density should be taken into account, but it should be offset by malleability and weight.

Um, density would _determine_ weight - and a hammer would/should have a damage benefit (offset by requiring greater strength / being more exhausting to wield) from being heavier.

[Footkerchief]

Then you have people running around with literal golden hammers.  Density should be taken into account, but it should be offset by malleability and weight.

Yeah.  It's worth noting that copper, bronze and iron were metals of choice for maces for millenia, despite lead being much denser and easier to obtain.

Now that Toady is adding much fancier material properties, separate damage/block values are kind of obsolete.  The game should be able to calculate all that based on compressive strength or whatever.  Not that it's actually happening anytime soon.

[Impaler[WrG]]

I'm not really in favor of damage values being based off of the detailed physical properties of metals such a density, tensile strength and the like.  Its terribly complex and makes it hard for players to know whats going on or how good/bad their weapons actually are.  Its hard enough to know that as it is now (would it be so bad if weapons had an X-Y damage value that took into effect the material, weapon type and craftsmanship so I don't have to do all the math myself).  It also makes any kind of balancing near impossible without altering those physical properties in ways that might break other parts of the game (opps it looks like steel floats in water now).  A system of tags in which the singular property of weapon damage in expressed independent of real physical properties is the best solution even if these damage tags are split into different damage type tags as I suggested.

[Footkerchief]

I'm not really in favor of damage values being based off of the detailed physical properties of metals such a density, tensile strength and the like.  Its terribly complex and makes it hard for players to know whats going on or how good/bad their weapons actually are. 

In a way, that might be a good thing.  It'll force people to view metals qualitatively instead of just thinking "Oh, this metal has a bigger number than that metal" -- you know, the powergaming mentality.  Maybe it's just me but I find purely quantitative comparisons pretty boring.

[Draco18s]

Maybe it's just me but I find purely quantitative comparisons pretty boring.

I'll make the wild guess that you weren't impressed with Spore either for the same reason.

[Footkerchief]

Among other reasons, yeah.

[Tormy]

I'm not really in favor of damage values being based off of the detailed physical properties of metals such a density, tensile strength and the like.  Its terribly complex and makes it hard for players to know whats going on or how good/bad their weapons actually are. 

In a way, that might be a good thing.  It'll force people to view metals qualitatively instead of just thinking "Oh, this metal has a bigger number than that metal" -- you know, the powergaming mentality.  Maybe it's just me but I find purely quantitative comparisons pretty boring.

Impaler has a good point anyway..it would be unnecessary if weapon damage -for example- would be based on so many stuff...that is just way too complex. Either way it doesn't really matters. Steel will be always very good in the vanilla game. 
However from the modding perspective, a more complex material->damage system would be good to have.

[Random832]

I'm not really in favor of damage values being based off of the detailed physical properties of metals such a density, tensile strength and the like.  Its terribly complex and makes it hard for players to know whats going on or how good/bad their weapons actually are. 

In a way, that might be a good thing.  It'll force people to view metals qualitatively instead of just thinking "Oh, this metal has a bigger number than that metal" -- you know, the powergaming mentality.  Maybe it's just me but I find purely quantitative comparisons pretty boring.

Impaler has a good point anyway..it would be unnecessary if weapon damage -for example- would be based on so many stuff...that is just way too complex. Either way it doesn't really matters. Steel will be always very good in the vanilla game. 

But it would be _fun_ - you'd have to discover for yourself (or we all discover together as a community) which metal makes the best swords, or the best crossbow bolts, etc.

[dwarfed one]

I find it quite amazing what Adamantine hammer could throw creatures at incredible distances while being extremely light. Damage system surely should be revised.

[Silverionmox]

I'm not really in favor of damage values being based off of the detailed physical properties of metals such a density, tensile strength and the like.  Its terribly complex and makes it hard for players to know whats going on or how good/bad their weapons actually are. 

In a way, that might be a good thing.  It'll force people to view metals qualitatively instead of just thinking "Oh, this metal has a bigger number than that metal" -- you know, the powergaming mentality.  Maybe it's just me but I find purely quantitative comparisons pretty boring.

Impaler has a good point anyway..it would be unnecessary if weapon damage -for example- would be based on so many stuff...that is just way too complex. Either way it doesn't really matters. Steel will be always very good in the vanilla game. 
However from the modding perspective, a more complex material->damage system would be good to have.

If we only needed to determine weapon damage, true. But tensile strength will come into play with construction, we'll obviously need weight/material density too, malleability will have its uses in smelting, forging, trampling, etc.. It'l probably be easier to base everything off a few core properties, rather than starting from a blank slate for every stat.

And as a bonus, using real life values for those properties will make sure the game is fairly well-balanced from the start, the material properties will be intuitive, it'll be all the more awesome if you can compare adamantium with ordinary iron as you know it, and last but not least: there'll be no endless unproductive discussions about which arbitrary value is better, because there's only one reality.

[Granite26]

because there's only one reality.

Says who?