NMA interview

[John Yossarian]

Hopefully, the fact that different weapons turn out to be more/less useful against different opponents will go some way to encouraging putting points in multiple melee skills. I'd guess that more of an incentive would be a good thing though.

How would you add another incentive though? Say you dont have different skill cost at any point, and all the different armor types have the same resistance to all weapons, and now suppose that you want a char. with 80 sword, 30 dagger to have an interesting choice deciding where to put his 10 points. Regardless of how fast the dagger can be, his much higher skill at sword will make it an automatic decision. The only way I can see this not happening is if going from 80 to 90 sword makes no difference for some reason, and you might want to use a dagger sometimes for fast attack. I wouldn't say that's good design though.
So I think focusing on making armors have different resistances and making NPCs dodge slow attacks is enough incentive, is just harder for devs. since they have to balance and make sure no reasonable build gets stuck.
I guess what you meant was create a synergy formula that gives you less total points if you only put points in one skill, or you increase it too much, but will give you more total points if you spread them around. The problem is that if the formula gives you more total points by adding to skills you'll never use (like a ranger never using a spear), its still a useless choice. OTOH if you only use certain skills in the synergy formula (sword and dagger, axe and spear) then it's on the dev. to make the right choices, which people might not like.
Anyway, ill be happy if its just the armor thing. :D

 

[galsiah]

How would you add another incentive though? Say you dont have different skill cost at any point, and all the different armor types have the same resistance to all weapons, and now suppose that you want a char. with 80 sword, 30 dagger to have an interesting choice deciding where to put his 10 points. Regardless of how fast the dagger can be, his much higher skill at sword will make it an automatic decision.

But the point is that there are different armour types, different weapon speeds, different HP totals, AP totals etc. I'm always assuming that there will be occasions where one weapon type is better than another - and occasions where the reverse is true. Also, bear in mind that it's not 80 vs 30, but rather 80 vs (30+20) = 50 (with VD's current synergies). If that's not close enough, consider a character with 80 sword and 50 (=62) dagger.

So I think focusing on making armors have different resistances and making NPCs dodge slow attacks is enough incentive

How so? If increasing the highest skill both increases that skill and all others, but increasing a lower skill only increases the lower skill, is the player really going to bother increasing lower skills?

A more versatile synergy effect isn't instead of weapon / armour diversity - it's a complement to it.

I guess what you meant was create a synergy formula that gives you less total points if you only put points in one skill, or you increase it too much, but will give you more total points if you spread them around.

Not necessarily. What I meant was what I said. I gave numbers and formulae - I wasn't vague.

In the current situation, increasing the highest skill gives:
1 + 0.4 + 0.4 + 0.4 + 0.4 points = 2.6 total points.
Increasing a lower skill gives 1 point.

Of course, in the first case, 1.6 points of the 2.6 are in skills you'll (probably) use less often. However, In the second case the entire increase is in a skill you'll (probably) use less often.

I'm not proposing switching the balance the other way (by making it better to increase lower skills). I'm proposing switching it to a more interesting middle ground, where "Do I increase the highest skill or a lower one?" is actually an interesting choice.

The problem is that if the formula gives you more total points by adding to skills you'll never use (like a ranger never using a spear), its still a useless choice.

That's not a problem, so long as there is an incentive to go either way, depending on character build. It doesn't need to be a good choice for every character to increase lower / higher skills. It just needs to be an option some characters would pick. If some characters would tend to only increase one skill, and some would tend to increase two or three, it'll pretty much automatically be true that there are some for which it's an interesting choice.

The problem at the moment is that increasing the highest skill is probably best for everyone. Clearly it gets you better at the skill you'll be using most. It's also the best way to get reasonably good with every supporting skill at once. Increasing one lower skill is a strange choice, and increasing two is pretty much pointless, since 3 points could be awarded like this (all to highest):
80 -> 83
50(62) -> 50(63.2)
30(50) -> 30(31.2)

Or like this (one to each):
80 -> 81
50(62) -> 51(63.4)
30(50) -> 31(31.4)

Are you going to trade 2 points in your primary melee skill for 0.2 points in two others? Is anyone?

If increasing skills above, say, 100 takes 2 points, then things will get more interesting once the highest skill reaches 100. If natural points in a skill are at all different from synergy-awarded points (e.g. allowing you to perform certain attacks when your natural points in that skill are >50 / >75), then that makes things a little different too.

 

[John Yossarian]

How would you add another incentive though? Say you dont have different skill cost at any point, and all the different armor types have the same resistance to all weapons, and now suppose that you want a char. with 80 sword, 30 dagger to have an interesting choice deciding where to put his 10 points. Regardless of how fast the dagger can be, his much higher skill at sword will make it an automatic decision.

But the point is that there are different armour types, different weapon speeds, different HP totals, AP totals etc. I'm always assuming that there will be occasions where one weapon type is better than another - and occasions where the reverse is true. Also, bear in mind that it's not 80 vs 30, but rather 80 vs (30+20) = 50 (with VD's current synergies). If that's not close enough, consider a character with 80 sword and 50 (=62) dagger.

Sorry for not mentioning but I wasn't taking VD's synergy into account either, and I took out the other effects to create more of a control situation. It seems to me that if a synergy doesn't add anything without taking into account other effects(armor res.,speed,etc) then is not worth the trouble. For example, different armor resistances would create interesting choices when increasing skills whether or not synergies or diff. weapon speeds are implemented.

So I think focusing on making armors have different resistances and making NPCs dodge slow attacks is enough incentive

How so? If increasing the highest skill both increases that skill and all others, but increasing a lower skill only increases the lower skill, is the player really going to bother increasing lower skills?

A more versatile synergy effect isn't instead of weapon / armour diversity - it's a complement to it.

I guess what you meant was create a synergy formula that gives you less total points if you only put points in one skill, or you increase it too much, but will give you more total points if you spread them around.

Not necessarily. What I meant was what I said. I gave numbers and formulae - I wasn't vague.

In the current situation, increasing the highest skill gives:
1 + 0.4 + 0.4 + 0.4 + 0.4 points = 2.6 total points.
Increasing a lower skill gives 1 point.

Of course, in the first case, 1.6 points of the 2.6 are in skills you'll (probably) use less often. However, In the second case the entire increase is in a skill you'll (probably) use less often.

I'm not proposing switching the balance the other way (by making it better to increase lower skills). I'm proposing switching it to a more interesting middle ground, where "Do I increase the highest skill or a lower one?" is actually an interesting choice.

The problem is that if the formula gives you more total points by adding to skills you'll never use (like a ranger never using a spear), its still a useless choice.

That's not a problem, so long as there is an incentive to go either way, depending on character build. It doesn't need to be a good choice for every character to increase lower / higher skills. It just needs to be an option some characters would pick. If some characters would tend to only increase one skill, and some would tend to increase two or three, it'll pretty much automatically be true that there are some for which it's an interesting choice.

The problem at the moment is that increasing the highest skill is probably best for everyone. Clearly it gets you better at the skill you'll be using most. It's also the best way to get reasonably good with every supporting skill at once. Increasing one lower skill is a strange choice, and increasing two is pretty much pointless, since 3 points could be awarded like this (all to highest):
80 -> 83
50(62) -> 50(63.2)
30(50) -> 30(31.2)

Or like this (one to each):
80 -> 81
50(62) -> 51(63.4)
30(50) -> 31(31.4)

Are you going to trade 2 points in your primary melee skill for 0.2 points in two others? Is anyone?

If increasing skills above, say, 100 takes 2 points, then things will get more interesting once the highest skill reaches 100. If natural points in a skill are at all different from synergy-awarded points (e.g. allowing you to perform certain attacks when your natural points in that skill are >50 / >75), then that makes things a little different too.

Again I wasn't advocating for VD's system. I agree that while it sort of solves the problem of a fighter using only one weapon, it doesn't provide a interesting choice in skill increase. So suppose we scrap VD's system, and only focus on making opponents and armor for incentive, why is this not enough? It would naturally solve the initial problem since every fighter will have to put points in at least two skills, or he will die when he meets an opponent resistant to his sole weapon.

 

[galsiah]

Personally I think some synergy system is a good idea. First because it makes little sense for very high skill in one area not to help at all. Second because it automatically forces the player into some level of diversity - which, whether he wants it or not, is likely to present him with more tactical options (although this stops being true if VD's current system does discourage diversity in player choice).

The trouble with taking varied armour resistances too far is that it forces every fighter to diversify. Synergy forces diversity too in a way, but does it automatically. Where a player has a choice, most choices should be reasonable (not necessarily optimal, of course).

If you force fighters to diversify in order to succeed, then it's no longer a genuine choice for a fighter. I think VD wants a one weapon specialist to be a viable choice for a combat character.

If things are structured so that more than one weapon is often required (or pretty much required), then the interesting choice could be in the combination of weapons chosen. However, I don't think things are like this at the moment. Perhaps they should be - I'm not sure.

 

[John Yossarian]

Personally I think some synergy system is a good idea. First because it makes little sense for very high skill in one area not to help at all.

A lot of things dont make sense in this game(why not add synergies to non-combat skills?) but that shouldn't be enough to add it.

Second because it automatically forces the player into some level of diversity - which, whether he wants it or not, is likely to present him with more tactical options (although this stops being true if VD's current system does discourage diversity in player choice).


The trouble with taking varied armour resistances too far is that it forces every fighter to diversify. Synergy forces diversity too in a way, but does it automatically. Where a player has a choice, most choices should be reasonable (not necessarily optimal, of course).

If you force fighters to diversify in order to succeed, then it's no longer a genuine choice for a fighter. I think VD wants a one weapon specialist to be a viable choice for a combat character.

Ok, if a player wants to especialize in only one weapon, and the game is beatable like this, why does he need any synergy? Whether it gives him more options is a moot point, since he will only need the one weapon he uses.
OTOH, if a player wants to play a mixed character, and the game is also beatable like this, why does he need any synergy? He's already going to make sure at least two weapon types are useful, so there is no need for the game to do it.
The only time I see it being useful is if you want to switch weapon types midgame without suffering much penalties. But is this what we want? What if i suddenly want to switch from my uber diplomat to a fighter, what help do i get?
All this just tells me that the only reason it was implemented was for realism.

If things are structured so that more than one weapon is often required (or pretty much required), then the interesting choice could be in the combination of weapons chosen. However, I don't think things are like this at the moment. Perhaps they should be - I'm not sure.

It's probably too much to ask for AoD, but I would love that. And it's not like the skill screen should require you to keep two skills at par when you increase them, but as you encounter more enemies you'll naturally notice that some of them are getting impossibly harder with your current weapon, so it would be a more fluid process of pairing skills.

 

[Vault Dweller]

I'm too busy too reply and comment at the moment, but one thing caught my eye:

If things are structured so that more than one weapon is often required (or pretty much required), then the interesting choice could be in the combination of weapons chosen. However, I don't think things are like this at the moment. Perhaps they should be - I'm not sure.

Sounds interesting. Can you develop this concept a bit?

 

[suibhne]

I'm too busy too reply and comment at the moment, but one thing caught my eye:

If things are structured so that more than one weapon is often required (or pretty much required), then the interesting choice could be in the combination of weapons chosen. However, I don't think things are like this at the moment. Perhaps they should be - I'm not sure.

Sounds interesting. Can you develop this concept a bit?

In the crudest way, this is pretty much what DR does in D&D. I think he's simply talking about different types of weapons being useful for different situations: for example, some weapons will be suited to charging enemies or those on horseback, some to heavily-armored enemies, others to lightly- or un-armored enemies, etc. I know AoD is pretty much full of human baddies, but armor, fighting style, and tactics can still suggest weapon choice even without recourse to cliches like lycanthropic weakness to silver.

The challenge in such a system is to offer enough tactical variation that a range of weapons can be useful, while still not inappropriately imbalancing a character focused strictly on swords vs. one more broadly trained in hafted weapons, polearms, and nets (e.g.). (Which is to say, a broadly-trained character should sometimes be at an advantage, and a highly-trained character should be more useful in other spots.) Your system of synergies could accomplish this, tho; it's just a matter of offering enough tactical challenge that utilizing different weapons is sometimes advantageous.

 

[Azaghâl]

That sounds a lot to MMORPGS like Ultima AoS or the later versions where a mace dexer destroys other melee or ranged classes like the axer or the archer, but lacks of use with mages or necromancers, and don't have another option that using other strategy or skill, like archery, for at least an opportunity of confronting them.
If a person only raises hammer skill and use 2handed hammers it would be very hard to survive confrontations with archers or enemys with xbow even more if he decides to use the light armor and dodging for defense that sounds like a good option for a slow welding 2hand hammer. Though he would probably can stand fight any other weapon welding guy if there are various types of hammers, so the synergys don't really sound that necesary to me, despite its realistic touch, unless they apply for the other "combat" skills like dodging or blocking and viceversa instead of other weapons skills, giving you the chance to invest in non combat skills in characters not fully centrated on combat. A character that have only hammer skill because it can be used as 2handed and don't need to use a shield to be effective, can still have, thanks to the synergys, the option of using 1hand mace and a shield with regular hability to stand a chance with ranged enemies.
Every weapon has its own function, and if the objective of the actual synergys is that a sneak dagger welding character can change to a sword for the possible fighting a medium/heavy armored guard with a spear/axe or hammer it don't have much sense, because it would be a contradiction to the very objetive of the character. But if instead is used for an armored spear character can use a dagger or short sword for dealing with a group of agile rogues, the synergys make sense. In this case the dagger or short sword skill can be raised with a synergy of the high blocking skill the character have and giving this a reason for being melee based.

PD: Pardon my english

 

[galsiah]

A lot of things dont make sense in this game(why not add synergies to non-combat skills?) but that shouldn't be enough to add it.

I'd say that it is - presuming that it has no other positive/negative effect on gameplay. Realism is a secondary issue, not a non-issue (whatever VD contends ). On its own it is certainly not a compelling argument, but all things being equal, it's preferable to choose realism.

Ok, if a player wants to especialize in only one weapon, and the game is beatable like this, why does he need any synergy? Whether it gives him more options is a moot point, since he will only need the one weapon he uses.

You can't be sure of that without more knowledge of the environment. Sometimes his primary weapon might be next to useless. In that situation, he'll find a backup useful even at much lower skill.

It can be possible to go through using only one weapon, but that doesn't necessarily make it sensible. You're polarizing things too much when the most interesting cases are in the middle ground.

Also, there might be times when the player will lose his primary weapon - e.g. if he's beaten in combat and robbed. At that point he might need to take whatever weapon he can find before going to get his stuff back.

OTOH, if a player wants to play a mixed character, and the game is also beatable like this, why does he need any synergy? He's already going to make sure at least two weapon types are useful, so there is no need for the game to do it.

Two, yes. Five no. He'll still be artificially useless with 60% of the game's weapons. That can only restrict his options.
And you're still polarizing things. There aren't two cases: "one weapon character" and "two weapon character" - there are a very large number of skill combinations. Pushing players into deciding to be either a strict "one weapon character" or "two weapon character" is something to be avoided. Ideally many skill combinations should be useful and interesting.

The only time I see it being useful is if you want to switch weapon types midgame without suffering much penalties.

How is it particularly useful here? To really "switch weapons" you'd want to get the second skill close to the highest, if not higher. At this point the synergy gives you nothing. It does make switching a less painful process, but this is probably a good thing, and remains more realistic.

But is this what we want?

Yes .

What if i suddenly want to switch from my uber diplomat to a fighter, what help do i get?

Are you likely to? Switching weapon types can be done without any change to the role you're playing, so is perfectly reasonable and consistent. Switching from a pure diplomat to a fighter is a total role switch. The cases are not comparable.

All this just tells me that the only reason it was implemented was for realism.

That's a bad thing only if it harms gameplay. Does it? Personally I think it probably helps - though it might need fine tuning, and certainly testing.

I think he's simply talking about different types of weapons being useful for different situations

That's what I meant. I think that's achievable, and probably already figures in AoD without much tweaking. As an obvious example, fast low damage weapons are more likely to be useful against lightly armoured foes, with high damage weapons being more suited to those with high damage resitance. A spear specialist might want to switch to dagger (say) to track down ranged enemies, since the spear interrupt is pretty useless and the dagger is faster...

I guess VD thought I meant use of a combination of weapons in one combat. That would certainly be more interesting, but harder to get working well - it'd need to be an advantage, without being an absolute requirement.

Again, I'd guess this automatically happens as things stand with combinations of Throwing/Bow/Crossbow with a melee skill. Getting combinations of melee skills to be useful might be harder.

Clearly for it to make sense for a player to use multiple weapons in the same combat, something about the situation has to change. I'm sure there are aspects which could change mid-combat, but many might start to get too complicated.

Some thoughts:
Clearly range can change, so ranged->melee will probably be a common switch.
Number of opponents in range can change. More opponents getting close might make spear a better weapon.
If opponents flee (do they?), a switch to a faster melee weapon might make sense for a melee only character.
If an enemy has very low HP, it might make sense to switch to faster weapon, since any hit will finish the fight.
Fatigue and injuries (hurt legs/arms etc.) could make a difference, but I guess these aren't in??
Opponent equipment changes would make a difference. The most obvious example might be an enemy losing a shield. Is it possible to remove an opponent's shield (through melee)? - e.g. by using a heavy hammer on a wooden shield?
Disarming an opponent (or being disarmed) could clearly change things, but I guess that being disarmed might be pretty annoying if you specialize in one weapon.

Perhaps if shields are really influencial, hammers and axes could have a chance to destroy / damage / remove a shield, but swords could be more effective against unshielded opponents (without heavy armour).

Spears are probably going to be useful in some situations without changes. For instance, a player might use a ranged weapon on the first attacker until he closes; draw a sword when he gets close; then pull out a spear as his two friends close in. After backing off, keeping them at bay for a while, he might beat two of them after a while. Then he could put away the spear and draw the sword again to more efficiently dispatch the last guy.

Fast weapons will always have their place, so I'd guess that daggers will come in handy sometimes without needing to plan for it much - for instance to finish off a badly injured, but fast / well defended opponent.

I guess that for these kind of changes to be likely, you'll have to make weapon switches fast - perhaps allow the player to pick one or two items to be "readied" before combat, so he can't be switching through ten weapons in seconds.

From a practical point of view, if changing weapons is going to be useful a lot of the time, and is going to have low AP cost (at least for readied weapons), the user interface for this needs to be very well designed. Changing weapons would need to become a one/two click second nature action, not an inventory management chore.

Getting the balance right might be hard though. For instance, if you're using hammers/axes as "shield disablers", it needs to be useful for a player to use them against a shielded guy even if the player has say sword 80, but only axe/hammer 60. A shield would have to be a very significant obstacle.
However, it still needs to be possible (if difficult) to beat a guy with a shield without using an axe/hammer.

I know axe/hammer already have advantages, but knockdown presumably only has a one turn influence, and bonus vs armour is going to be constant throughout the fight (presumably?). Having the possibility to remove an opponent's shield gives them a means to change things for the remainder of the combat, rather than only for that turn.

I know (I think?) you already have spears which can be thrown at shields to disable them (which is good), but I think a melee only alternative would be nice.
Of course the player's best tactics might change significantly if he loses his own shield, so it works both ways.

Anyway, it's worth a thought - perhaps .

 

[John Yossarian]

A lot of things dont make sense in this game(why not add synergies to non-combat skills?) but that shouldn't be enough to add it.

I'd say that it is - presuming that it has no other positive/negative effect on gameplay. Realism is a secondary issue, not a non-issue (whatever VD contends ). On its own it is certainly not a compelling argument, but all things being equal, it's preferable to choose realism.

That's the thing, all things are not equal. VD had to add a new game mechanic, and then people complained for different reasons and suggested changes, so it seems like a lot of trouble if it's just for realism sake.

Sometimes his primary weapon ...

I see your point, but i'm afraid that trying to find the balance between possible and sensible by putting in several mechanics might make the possible too sensible and take away the incentive to use several weapons. That's why i would rather see the entire focus put into armor and combat differences (since we haven't found a synergy that would work by itself). But if the game is kept balanced and provides interesting choice when deciding how to increase skills I'll be happy with it.

....

Two, yes. Five no...

I said at least two. But even if you specialize in more weapon types, the point still applies. If the player wants to raise the skill of the several weapons he wants to use, there is no need for the game to automatically raise them more.

Anyways, those were great ideas about the several weapons thing, especially about using a couple in one fight. I would love to see that implemented, glad VD is interested. I'll think about it and see if I can add something.

 

[Claw]

Is it possible to remove an opponent's shield (through melee)? - e.g. by using a heavy hammer on a wooden shield?

Oh, pay attention.

Yes, there are pilums and they do ignore and disarm shields. There are other ways to deal with shields too (there was a thread here somewhere). Bearded axe can pull shields off, sickle swords are very hard to block, etc.

I said at least two. But even if you specialize in more weapon types, the point still applies. If the player wants to raise the skill of the several weapons he wants to use, there is no need for the game to automatically raise them more.

That depends on how abundant skill points are. At the very least, it allows characters who are not combat specialists to train a single weapon and still use different weapons.

 

[galsiah]

Oh, pay attention...

I'd remembered the pilums, but not the rest. Thanks for the reminder.
In that case, what matters is that shields provide a significant bonus (presumably they do?), and that removing them is something that can be done relatively reliably with a large proportion of opponents.

For instance, I don't think e.g. a 10% chance to remove an adversary's shield would be enough (for a player reasonably skilled in axe[/hammer], against an average opponent). That'd make it more of an unanticipated bonus than a reliable strategy.

Of course, increasing the chances of shield removal makes that a very good skill/weapon, so e.g. swords would have to be better against (most) unshielded opponents.

Other similar combat-changing-events would be nice too, but I can't think of many obvious, simple ones. It's probably not credible for armour to change much during a fight - I guess a helmet might get knocked off, but that's hardly going to happen frequently (I'd have thought).
If disarming were included, there'd need to be some option for a player who loses all his weapons. Also, it couldn't be too common to be disarmed, since it'd be both annoying and not credible.

At the very least, it allows characters who are not combat specialists to train a single weapon and still use different weapons.

True - and I like that. I still worry that it encourages combat focused characters towards a one weapon style, rather than allocating skill points to multiple weapons.

 

[Vault Dweller]

By putting them in dagger he gets 7 points overall (more than 7 considering the other melee skills too), rather than 5. He also improves his best weapon, rather than only a less commonly used one. There doesn't seem to be much incentive to increase sword: the 40% synergy makes it much less worthwhile.

IIRC though, skills take more points to increase once they're at high values (right??), so once it takes 2 points to get a dagger increase, it'll make some sense to increase an alternative melee weapon.
If it's always 1 point = 1 skill increase, there is little reason ever to spend points on backup melee weapons. I don't think that's good.

True. However, the synergy bonus doesn't increase the trait bonus. As you know, each weapon class has a trait (interrupt, knockdown, ignore armor, disarm, etc). The trait action doesn't happen automatically every time you hit something. At slvl 25 you have 10% chance of scoring it, at slvl 100 you have 40% chance and so on. Well, if your skill level with a secondary weapon is 25, but the synergy bumped it up to 75, you still get only 10%.

Here's a (hopefully fairly simple) idea for adding "reverse" synergies:
(1) Start with the unmodified skill values.
(2) Add them all up to get a total.
(3) Add [((Total - skill) / skill) * Constant] to each skill to get its final value.

For instance, say Constant = 3, and the PC has:
Dagger 80
Sword 60
Axe 40
Spear 30
Hammer 30

Total is 80 + 60 + 40 + 30 + 30 = 240

So Dagger = 80 + [((240 - 80) / 80) * 3] = 80 + 6 = 86
Sword = 60 + [((240 - 60) / 60) * 3] = 60 + 9 = 69
Axe = 40 + [((240 - 40) / 40) * 3] = 40 + 15 = 55
Spear = 30 + [((240 - 30) / 30) * 3] = 40 + 21 = 51
Hammer = 30 + [((240 - 30) / 30) * 3] = 40 + 21 = 51

The system does promote increasing *other* skills, but I strongly dislike that. Too TES-ish for my taste. It's one thing when your mastery with a sword allows you to be reasonably good with a dagger, but it makes no sense the other way around: learning not cut yourself with a dagger suddenly makes you even more deadly with a sword. Besides, your system doesn't address the main point very well - increasing lower skills to reasonble levels. For example, let's say:

Dagger 200
Sword 20
Axe 20
Spear 20
Hammer 20
Total: 280

Sword = 20 + [((280 - 20) / 20) * 3] = 20 + 39 = 59
There is a huge difference between 200 and 59. Now, let's use my system:
Sword = 20 + (200-20)*40% = 20 + 72 = 92. Makes more sense, imo.

I think VD wants a one weapon specialist to be a viable choice for a combat character.

Yes.

I guess VD thought I meant use of a combination of weapons in one combat

Yep.

 

[Vault Dweller]

A lot of things dont make sense in this game(why not add synergies to non-combat skills?)

I explained it several times already:

There's a person on a Finnish board who likes weapon skill synergies but wonders why there are none for the general skills.

Because weapon skills are the same, basically. You use both a sword and an axe in exactly the same situation for exactly the same reason and expect exactly the same results. It's not the case for Persuasion and Streetwise, for example, or Crafting and Alchemy.

So, when I give you an option to use a different weapon somewhat effectively, I'm not giving you a freebie. I'm giving you a slight alternative that doesn't make you a more powerful or skilled fighter. If I were to do the same with general skills, I would have to split Crafting into Metalworks, Woodworks, Leatherworks or Dodge into Dodge Melee & Dodge Ranged. See what I mean? It just doesn't work there.

What else doesn't make sense from the design point of view?

 

[GhanBuriGhan]

Galsiah, I think you seriously need to start your own game project, as an outlet for all that RPG-ruleset creative energy you have got.

 

[Vault Dweller]

That's for sure.

 

[whatusername]

Fo' sho' BITCH!

 

[galsiah]

True. However, the synergy bonus doesn't increase the trait bonus.

Good.

The system does promote increasing *other* skills, but I strongly dislike that. Too TES-ish for my taste.

I probably think in TES too much, that's true. Force of habit.
However, it doesn't really promote increasing other skills unless you're really going to use them (it's not like TES where the supply of skill points doesn't dry up). It'll always be better to focus on major skills [EDIT - there I go again ] with the system I gave. It'll just give some benefit to increasing any skill.

It's one thing when your mastery with a sword allows you to be reasonably good with a dagger, but it makes no sense the other way around: learning not cut yourself with a dagger suddenly makes you even more deadly with a sword.

I agree it should make less of a difference, but not no difference. With the system I gave (which would need tweaking I'm sure) dagger got increased by a only a few points.
It's hardly "suddenly" either - from the situation I gave, increasing hammer by 27 points gives a 1 point dagger increase.

It makes a small difference where it makes sense to make a small difference, and a medium/large one at other times.

Besides, your system doesn't address the main point very well - increasing lower skills to reasonble levels.

Well, I'd say that makes more sense - as you start to get past basic proficiency with weapons, the differences become much more important. Increasing from 100 to 200 with a sword really wouldn't help far beyond the basics with a dagger - certainly not with a hammer.

IMO increasing dagger from 180 to 200 should do next to nothing for an axe skill of 20. I'd say increasing hammer from 50 to 70 would do a lot more, even with dagger at 180.

However, since you're not going for realism (and I'm sure my system has its faults in that department), the point is fair enough.

I understand that you want to make it reasonable for a character to specialize in only one weapon. However, at the moment that seems the only reasonable choice.

How important are the traits to success / failure? Are they nice little bonuses, or things that'll reliably win me (some) battles? (the latter is preferable)


In any case, I'll stick with my "it's worth a thought". Your system is certainly a reasonable choice IMO, and I'm not ecstatic about mine. I do think that it'd be a good idea to focus on making the traits of many combat skills very useful (in some situations), rather than just providing color and an occasional bonus. Particularly because that will mean pulling out that style of weapon because you hope to do something really different with it (sometimes at least). That's more interesting than figuring out how to do most damage per turn. [of course that's the eventual goal in any case, but you know what I mean ]


Ghan:
Perhaps. I have the idea that people ought to have more experience than I do before seriously getting into design though (like dear old Todd :D ). At least I'd like to be a better programmer first.
Also, with regard to RPGs, I think you have it right with "RPG-ruleset creative energy". A ruleset is not a game. I'm not sure I have any overall RPG vision which would work out.

I have a lot of interest in individual game systems and aspects, and in doing interesting things with them (and getting them "right"). However, that's a recipe for disaster without a very strong, narrow, realistic focus on exactly what you want to do with the game as a whole. [I sometimes get the "strong" and the "narrow", but then the "realistic" eludes me ]

 

[John Yossarian]

What else doesn't make sense from the design point of view?

I said that about synergies being realistic, so my point was that many things don't make sense from the realism point of view, but that alone wasn't enough to change it.
Also you are giving fighters a freebie. If I focus on only one weapon, and then I have to face 3 opponents with armor resistant to it, it doesn't matter because i can just pull out a second weapon that i've never used, and be decent enough with it to not lose. How is that different from giving Streetwise some bonus from high Persuasion, so that you can handle situations where persuasion can't be used? I wouldn't be making a stronger persuader, and I still can't handle most situations with Streetwise alone.
So the only reason I see for putting one in and not the other is that in reality, fighters can adapt more easily to different weapons (is this true?) than peaceful characters to different non-combat skills.

You use both a sword and an axe in exactly the same situation for exactly the same reason and expect exactly the same results.

Wouldn't this make the diff. between sword and axe just cosmetic? Or do the traits make the gameplay difference?

 

[RGE]

True. However, the synergy bonus doesn't increase the trait bonus. As you know, each weapon class has a trait (interrupt, knockdown, ignore armor, disarm, etc). The trait action doesn't happen automatically every time you hit something. At slvl 25 you have 10% chance of scoring it, at slvl 100 you have 40% chance and so on. Well, if your skill level with a secondary weapon is 25, but the synergy bumped it up to 75, you still get only 10%.

Will this be obvious on the character sheet, or will a player have to remember that some of their weapon skills are slightly worse than they seem to be? It seems particularly crappy if the purpose of switching to an alternative weapon is mainly to use the special trait that it provides. Kind of like synergies don't matter, because those who want to use more than one weapon will put points into the weapons they want to use, and those who only put points in one weapon won't have much of an incentive to switch, because switching doesn't seem to pay off. Well, unless you switch for raw damage rather than special traits. I guess that's a valid area for synergies then. Perhaps it shows that I haven't followed the discussion very closely.

 

[Vault Dweller]

However, at the moment that seems the only reasonable choice.

True.

How important are the traits to success / failure? Are they nice little bonuses, or things that'll reliably win me (some) battles? (the latter is preferable)

Depends on the skill level. At low level an occasional knockdown/interrupt/disarm is a nice little bonus, at higher level such traits will become uber.

In any case, I'll stick with my "it's worth a thought".

Definitely.

 

[John Yossarian]

Well it seems that as it stands now the traits alone won't be enough to want to change weapons in one fight. If you have to increase your skill to 100 and then you only get about 2 trait attacks for every 5 attacks, for a weapon that you are mainly going to use for the trait, it's not worth it.Spears and fast weapons will still have their use as galsiah said.
VD could you give more info on the traits? Does each weapon have a diff. one, since sickle swords and bearded axe have their own? Is knockdown also knockback, and do hammers have this (I think you said crossbows had this)? That could make fights against multiple people interesting.
Im just asking to see if we could use things that already exist in the game to come up with a system for combat with several weapons that is interesting for most weapon combos, instead of thinking up weapon abilities that couldn't be implemented.

 

[Vault Dweller]

Well it seems that as it stands now the traits alone won't be enough to want to change weapons in one fight. If you have to increase your skill to 100 and then you only get about 2 trait attacks for every 5 attacks, for a weapon that you are mainly going to use for the trait, it's not worth it.Spears and fast weapons will still have their use as galsiah said.

The main reasons to use a secondary weapon are:

A) - let's say you have 8 AP/turn. You prefer to use a "long sword", power attacks - (5+1) AP, you have 2AP left. Switching to daggers, fast attacks - (3-1) AP gives you an option to continue attacking instead of wasting points.

B) - let's say you specialize in daggers, and you are fighting against a heavily armored guy and your attacks simply don't do enough damage. You have a viable option to switch to the biggest weapon you have in stock. Works the other way around too. You may want to switch to the fastest weapon when fighting a fast opponent and increase your chances to hit the bastard.

VD could you give more info on the traits? Does each weapon have a diff. one, since sickle swords and bearded axe have their own? Is knockdown also knockback, and do hammers have this (I think you said crossbows had this)? That could make fights against multiple people interesting.

Each weapon class has its own trait. All hammers may knock an opponent down and back. All spears may interrupt attacks. And so on. Some weapons have individual traits: short swords could be thrown, pilums ignore shields, etc. Class traits are "chance" based, individual traits work all the time.

Im just asking to see if we could use things that already exist in the game to come up with a system for combat with several weapons that is interesting for most weapon combos, instead of thinking up weapon abilities that couldn't be implemented.

That calls for another thread. I'll describe the system a bit later, when I have time, and ask for some input.

 

[John Yossarian]

The main reasons to use a secondary weapon are:

A) - let's say you have 8 AP/turn. You prefer to use a "long sword", power attacks - (5+1) AP, you have 2AP left. Switching to daggers, fast attacks - (3-1) AP gives you an option to continue attacking instead of wasting points.

B) - let's say you specialize in daggers, and you are fighting against a heavily armored guy and your attacks simply don't do enough damage. You have a viable option to switch to the biggest weapon you have in stock. Works the other way around too. You may want to switch to the fastest weapon when fighting a fast opponent and increase your chances to hit the bastard.

Yeah that's what I thought.

Each weapon class has its own trait. All hammers may knock an opponent down and back. All spears may interrupt attacks. And so on. Some weapons have individual traits: short swords could be thrown, pilums ignore shields, etc. Class traits are "chance" based, individual traits work all the time.

If some daggers don't have traits already, I would like something like the effects of localized damage (without the actual loc. damage system, AoD won't have this right?). Like making the opp. lose some AP temporarily, or decrease chance to block or accuracy, (the desc. screen will say you cut his eye or hand or something).

That calls for another thread. I'll describe the system a bit later, when I have time, and ask for some input.

Now I think there is enough traits and differences to make a nice several weapon system, only that it would likely require making one weapon char. much less viable.
If you make another thread, could you at least make one here, becasue at the General RPG Discussion it will get too broad for anything useful to come out, and you cant really require people to keep it about AoD or AoDesque. OTOH making a thread at the Gen. Disc. could give you good ideas for that space game if you ever get around to making it.

 

[Bradylama]

Having a one-weapon combat character shouldn't be much of a problem considering that they've presumably put their skill investment into other dialogue related skills, or otherwise.

A character that only dumps points in a single skill is more than likely using that skill for self-defense while focusing on accomplishing objectives through the other means that he's made available to him. So long as these options are properly supported in the design, it shouldn't be that much of a problem.

Unless I'm misreading you, and you're saying that this is a good thing.