Vault Dweller said:
...So, do you actually make an exception for DR1 and also have several typos in your table or what am I missing?
Explain the "numbers don't fit / typos" part.
Presumably he means the 2-5 for S/Bow AP DR1, which should be 2-4, and the 0-9 for L/Bow Reg DR4, which should be 0-6.
One question: Is it possible to change ammo types in battle, and if so how long does it take? Unless it takes a significant time, regular ammo would be almost useless, since it's almost always worse than either jagged or AP. If it does take significant time to switch, regular also has the advantage of being ok against a large range of light/medium armoured adversaries.
I've been thinking about this for a while, but I don't think you'd like most of the suggestions I'd make. For a start, I'd be inclined to suggest having various multipliers/divisors, rather than just addition/subtraction. That's fine, but it leaves rounding errors as one of the most significant aspects of the system: the player will often then end up using tactics based on artefacts of the system, rather than game world features. E.g. with the AP DR reduction crakkie proposed, there'd be no difference in damage detween DR4 and DR7, but sudden drops from DR3-4 and 7-8. Presumably this will work both ways (NPCs use the same system), so your DR7 has absolutely no advantage over a DR4 against AP-using enemies - but a DR8 is much better than a DR7.
I like crakkie's introduction of multiplication/division, but I hate its side-effects. It's exactly the sort of thing that encourages players to optimize to mechanical artefacts rather than the game world.
I'd suggest this (though I don't think you'll like it):
Keep the multiplication and division involved - in fact you might consider adding more. For example, if bow types multiplied damage after DR, rather than adding to it, you'd be able to balance for all bow types simultaneously (damage ratios between ammo types would then be independent of the bow used).
Don't round off the answers in the conventional way with e.g. 2.4 -> 2; 2.7 -> 3. Instead, treat any 2.
something as possibly-2-or-3, then decide which it is with another weighted random roll.
2.4 would mean 40% chance of 3; 60% chance of 2.
1.9 would mean 90% chance of 2; 10% chance of 1.
etc. etc.
The fractional part is just the odds of getting the extra point.
I don't think there's much problem with clarity here, but perhaps you'll think otherwise. The important point is that this type of calculation gives both players and NPCs a good reason to prefer DR5 to DR4, DR6 to DR5 etc. It's a system that allows players to make sensible decisions
without noticing the numbers - i.e. based on what makes sense according to the situation in the game world. Without this sort of system, you get an artificial system which encourages the player to notice and exploit its artificialities.
Anyway, I don't think you can balance things well without multiplication/division, and once you include them you have to choose between large numbers (which you don't like), decimals (which you don't like), stupidly large rounding errors (which I don't like), and some-slightly-odd-system-to-avoid-these-issues.
If you did use the rounding system I suggested, it'd allow you to add whatever multipliers you wanted without fear of getting screwed up results. For example, you could have a certain bow a +20% to all damage, or a +50% to post-DR damage, and know that it'd always be strictly preferable to face such a bow with e.g. DR6 rather than DR4. You'd know that you weren't creating any weird min-maxers' paradise, even before you looked at the numbers.
As I say, I think the easiest way to get the ammo types balanced for all bow types would be to have bow modifiers multiply post-DR damage. However, that doesn't make a whole lot of sense: long/composite bows really ought to have more AP power than short bows, as well as more final damage (as is reflected in giving them more damage from the start, rather than after DR).
It's probably better to have them multiplying pre-DR damage. That way the ammo balance changes from bow to bow - but that can make for some interesting variety so long as you're careful.
I'd suggest something like:
Regular: 1-8; standard DR
Jagged: 5-10; *2 DR [i.e. +100%]
AP: 2-4; *0.3 DR [i.e. -70%]
S/Bow: *1.0 damage
L/Bow: *1.3 damage [i.e. +30%]
C/Bow: *1.5 damage [i.e. +50%]
That gives:
S/Bow:
Jagged best for DR 0-2; decent for 0-3.
Regular best for DR 3-4; decent for 0-6.
AP best for DR 6-12; decent for 2-12.
L/Bow:
Jagged best for DR 0-3; decent for 0-4.
Regular best for DR 4-6; decent for 0-9.
AP best for DR 7-12; decent for 3-12.
C/Bow:
Jagged best for DR 0-3; decent for 0-5.
Regular best for DR 4-7; decent for 0-10.
AP best for DR 8-12; decent for 3-12.
I think that's a reasonable balance - regular is decent over the largest ranges, and best for medium armour, but is never that much better than the others. Jagged has the smallest useful range, but kicks ass in that range. AP is pretty decent for any armoured opponent, but never does a load of damage - though it's clearly best for high DR, since it's the only ammo that works at all. I guess it's pretty reasonable that regular/jagged ammo becomes more useful against moderately armoured opponents with more powerful bows.
This gives a maximum damage range of 7.5 to 15 for C/Bow jagged DR0 - pretty close to your original value. I'll make a table when I can be bothered
.
I really do think that a smooth rounding system is important though - it replaces the incentive for spreadsheet autism with the incentive for common sense. Once the mechanic makes good sense, it's not that important that it can be understood easily/clearly in in its mechanical detail by all players - it can be understood intuitively already. 3.7 meaning "70% chance of 4; 30% chance of 3" might not be intuitive, but its implications are. On the other hand, standard rounding, where a difference of 3.45 to 3.55 becomes a difference of 1 (3 to 4), while a difference of 3.55 to 4.45 becomes no difference at all (4 to 4) has counter-intuitive implications.