|
Post by goran on Aug 21, 2015 13:26:16 GMT -5
Probably not going to be in the next release, but are there any plans in the future to include multiple damage types (say, slash, crush, pierce, etc)?
|
|
|
Post by ano on Aug 21, 2015 13:36:41 GMT -5
Not necessarily. That is another thing that should be more explored once we get closer to developing the actual combat.
Why don't you tell us why do you think that is a good idea?(Besides realism, that is.)
|
|
|
Post by Sinner on Aug 21, 2015 14:36:59 GMT -5
It adds depth to the game, and makes it seem more fleshed out and interesting.
I have a few ideas for damage types my self!
|
|
|
Post by droark on Aug 21, 2015 14:40:56 GMT -5
I'm slightly on the side of damage types, though not for their own sake. When you tell the player, "Okay. You can use blunt, slashing, and piercing weaponry, and cast fire, ice, and lightning spells." You also imply that those damage types will do different things to different enemies. In that is a (relatively) easy way to deepen the design of enemy creatures, because some creatures may be weak, strong, or immune to certain damage types based on what kind of creature they are.
However, this is something I do say should be (way) further down the road, once designing combat encounters like that may becomes a focus.
Edit: This does leave the burden on the player to keep multiple damage types on them at all times, mind you. Because that frost bolt won't stop the troll from regenerating!
|
|
|
Post by Sinner on Aug 21, 2015 14:48:39 GMT -5
I'm slightly on the side of damage types, though not for their own sake. When you tell the player, "Okay. You can use blunt, slashing, and piercing weaponry, and cast fire, ice, and lightning spells." You also imply that those damage types will do different things to different enemies. In that is a (relatively) easy way to deepen the design of enemy creatures, because some creatures may be weak, strong, or immune to certain damage types based on what kind of creature they are. However, this is something I do say should be (way) further down the road, once designing combat encounters like that may becomes a focus. Edit: This does leave the burden on the player to keep multiple damage types on them at all times, mind you. Because that frost bolt won't stop the troll from regenerating! There can simply be vendors selling bombs,spells that apply elemental buffs, weapons with natural damage, etc etc... Ive got some damage types in mind already.
|
|
|
Post by ano on Aug 21, 2015 20:44:18 GMT -5
I'm slightly on the side of damage types, though not for their own sake. When you tell the player, "Okay. You can use blunt, slashing, and piercing weaponry, and cast fire, ice, and lightning spells." You also imply that those damage types will do different things to different enemies. In that is a (relatively) easy way to deepen the design of enemy creatures, because some creatures may be weak, strong, or immune to certain damage types based on what kind of creature they are. However, this is something I do say should be (way) further down the road, once designing combat encounters like that may becomes a focus. Edit: This does leave the burden on the player to keep multiple damage types on them at all times, mind you. Because that frost bolt won't stop the troll from regenerating! There can simply be vendors selling bombs,spells that apply elemental buffs, weapons with natural damage, etc etc... Ive got some damage types in mind already. What he meant is that it forces the player to diversify their play style, because their play style simply won't cut it for all enemies. This could be solved by guaranteeing all major play styles have some way to approach any specific situation, but that would have to be more thought out. For example, we would need to know exactly which play styles are those, and to know that we would really depend on the perk list. The bombs and debuffs could solve this issue, but I am hesitant in saying that they will definitely be in without first exploring what effects such would have in the overall economy. Mainly what I am saying is that we need first to have a basis we can experiment on before seeing if it works, and that basis will only be ready next week or so.
|
|
|
Post by goran on Aug 22, 2015 1:23:27 GMT -5
Not necessarily. That is another thing that should be more explored once we get closer to developing the actual combat. Why don't you tell us why do you think that is a good idea?(Besides realism, that is.) Variety. Slash is very accurate, but easy to armour against, crush is much less accurate, but very difficult to armour against, pierce is somewhere in the middle.
|
|