Damage types

From: beregar
Date: 2002-02-13 15:16:21

I propose system where we don't have typical damage types, but instead of that, we either construct damage types from pieces or add these pieces and construct for example spells.

So if these properties are for example: impact, bleed, heat, cold, electricity, dissolve, suffocate, set aflame, extinguish etc etc. We could construct damage types by adding these properties to it. For example fire would have heat and set aflame properties and water would have extinguish and suffocate properties.

I would like to see this layered system because it allows more spell creation options. It is also a way to determine difference between true names and normal magic. Normal magic could only construct effects for spells from already existing damage types (ie acid, fire etc) where as true name magic could create effects that do not normally appear by combining these properties (you could make an effect which causes both heat damage and dissolves it or which both suffocates target and sets it aflame).

This would also allow designers (or coders) to add these effects through simple combination of basic effects. For example magma is obviously effect which both burns and causes impact damage. This system is still not perfect since it doesn't allow you to define rules like "suffocate when immersed" etc. So, what do you think?

- Beregar

From: Archantes
Date: 2002-02-13 17:02:27
In-Reply-To: 707

Should there be more different types for impact? Like the usual biting-crushing system. After all, a ringmail never protects damage from blunt weapons or crush magic etc.

And rust damage maybe?

The system sounds good to me.. We can define protective values eg for clothing. Your ringmail doesn't rust when you walk in rain with robe..

[OT - and you have just witnessed the 100th message written by a single designer to this new forum system. Let's have a banquet!]

From: beregar
Date: 2002-02-16 14:58:10
In-Reply-To: 709

Well, that was just a pudding idea anyway. I'm not yet sure if it is applicable at all and needs a lot refining.

Besides, biting actually causes both crushing and piercing damage. Your rusting damage is a good example though.


- Beregar

From: sirdar
Date: 2002-02-19 10:56:24
In-Reply-To: 709

Damage Types a la Sirdar - explained in a few words to get the picture.

Chaos
-----
'disfiguring your face'
'exchanging your lungs with your testicles'

Cold
----
'causing a slight chill'
'causing bones to freeze and shatter'

Corrosion
---------
'causing a bad acid wound'
'causing entrails to spill as the gastro-cavity corrodes'

Crushing
--------
'smashing rib bones into a lung'
'flailing, making organs rip apart from the force of the attack'

Disintegration
--------------
'causing skin to disintegrate'
'causing a shoulder to disappear'

Electricity
-----------
'producing a small shock'
'producing a shock to the spine making discs to fly'

Heat
----
'causing small burns'
'making flames sear right through the bone'

Impact
------
'knocks him down from the impact'
'gets buried under'

Magical, pure
-------------
'causing a major magical burn'
'creating a magical brain tumor'

Mind
----
'inducing a minor headache'
'making the head explode violently'

Piercing
--------
'puncturing a hole, allowing entrails to spill everywhere'
'digging through his heart'

Poison
------
'causing toxins to burn the skin'
'causing limbs to die and and fall off from toxins'

Slashing
--------
'scrapes open a gaping wound'
'rending barbarically, causing blood to flow out from the mouth'

Suffocation
-----------
'causing the airway to get smothered'
'forcing blood to get sucked from veins'

------8

From: Archantes
Date: 2002-02-17 19:37:13
In-Reply-To: 727

..biting actually causes both crushing and piercing damage..

Very true. Crushing especially when wearing a chainmail.. it may protect you from piercing damage but crushing does the job. And btw a plate armour suffers much damage when you hit it hard with mace since it caves in.. :)

So, do we have the usual biting, crushing and piercing as impact damage types then? I could say yes.

From: Nahl_Shadore
Date: 2002-02-17 23:26:25
In-Reply-To: 755

no, I'd say crushing, piercing, and slicing/cutting (rather than biting
biting was already defined as a combination of crushing and piercing, but that still won't always be true. If you aggrivate a hippo enough it'll bite you (really strong jaws too), but since it's teeth are flat it won't pierce, just crush
each animal and weapon attack can be defined as a combination of these 3 types

also, while piercing will cripple limbs, slicing can sever them

for example
arrow -> piercing
mace -> crushing
short sword -> slicing
morning star -> crush/pierce
sword (thrust) -> slice/pierce
axe/heavy sword -> crush/slice

if someone can think of one that does all 3, I'd like to know what it is

From: darshan
Date: 2002-02-18 09:09:45
In-Reply-To: 771

Just to remind you all: In every game mechanics matter, we are aiming for a minimal set of variables. This also applies to damage types. Is there a specific reason to have several impact attacks (piercing, crushing, slicing, whatever) instead of having just one?

From: Archantes
Date: 2002-02-18 19:44:11
In-Reply-To: 772

I just quote my post..

Crushing especially when wearing a chainmail.. it may protect you from piercing damage but crushing does the job. And btw a plate armour suffers much damage when you hit it hard with mace since it caves in..

And there is plenty more: Platemail, you can't harm one with katana - but simply use longbow. Katana makes more damage than single shot, but when it is against platemail - no use.

Hit someone with bunch of fives to leg - it will sooner or later be cut into pieces - remember there is only one damage type - slicing.

Or if there is only crushing - a sword will never actually cut anything. Use a stick - it is cheaper.

I could add a dozen more if you ask.

So we need to decide - it is reality against minimal number of game variables.

Where is the line?

From: darshan
Date: 2002-02-18 21:17:13
In-Reply-To: 778

But do we need to differentiate damage done by a katana from damage made by an arrow? I don't think any player would even notice if we didn't.

From: Archantes
Date: 2002-02-18 22:17:41
In-Reply-To: 782

We need.

Believe me, there will be.

And if someone wants for example to invade Dark elven lands he will face warriors equipped with katanas. He may want to protect himself from those. So he decides to carry a chainmail instead of ringmail cause you usually can't pierce with katana. And he doesn't want to carry a platemale 'cause there is no much bows in elven armies. A chainmail is cheaper, lighter and gives almost as good protect against shlashing damage.

Still the question is: Do we want players to be able to make such strategic decisions?

This would in some limits prevent the usual arms race in equipment that strains other RPGs. There is no ultimate plate armour that protects mightily against all impact damage.. Players face many difficulties and will survive if they have brains not only armour.

Do we want this?

This issue can be expanded to other fields in game mechanics and world designing.

I'm not the right person to say what we want from this game, but I utter my opinion: We need at least two damage types: Slashing/piercing (a combination) and crushing.

But I would really appreciate opionions from others. I'm in risky zone now. And I do not want to step on anyone's toes.

From: raeky
Date: 2002-02-18 22:34:19
In-Reply-To: 784

I agree, the 3 variables are good, it gives the game more dynamics, players will figure out which armor is best for which type of weapons, trust me, they'll write websites on what to wear where and how best not to get killed by doing whatever quest or whatever monster.

-raeky

From: Archantes
Date: 2002-02-18 23:24:21
In-Reply-To: 787

Indeed they will. And there will be discussion, in #majik, in #myownpartyinmajik3d, in #lanuin in rec.games.rpg.majik.elves in ..majik.minartan ;)

Oh well, maybe it will not be that big, but still there is going to be information spreaded all over. UO anyone? :)

From: beregar
Date: 2002-02-19 17:54:27
In-Reply-To: 790

Btw, see the battlesystem from worldbook regarding physical combat. I approached this from the spell viewpoint: as truename spells can affect to prime particles themselves, you would assume that through manipulation of them, you could create even unnatural combinations (water that is naturally boiling and emits light etc).

- Beregar

From: beregar
Date: 2002-02-19 17:58:24
In-Reply-To: 807

I'm not exactly sure if poison is a damagetype in itself. It causes cellural (structural) damage to tissues as well as internal damage to for example nerve system. If we had to use the term, I'd rather define it as toxification (a bad word?).

Also, I think it is good to have damage based on magical energy, but is it actually same as damage directly to target's soul? Though, I suppose it is actually destruction pattern as souls too are formed from prime particles (as is everything in the world whether natural or unnatural). Elder gods are only beings outside this.

- Beregar

From: raeky
Date: 2002-02-21 20:01:06
In-Reply-To: 807

so each spell or item will have one or several or all of these damage types? this isn't very simplistic... heh