Thoughts on damage and the prevention thereof:
There could be any number of different types of damage, by name, off the top of my head: bludgeoning, slashing, piercing, heat, cold, electric, acid (all DnD staples), energy, dark, poison, etc. And then you've got the question of what delivery mechanism is the damage using: melee/ranged, does it need a roll to hit or not? single target? Area? chained? cone? ranged area? damage over time? etc.
How many damage types? How many attack types? Which ones? Is there "untyped" damage, and if so, how does it interact with resistance? (Some of this is affected by the Kickstarter I believe)
Do we need to nail down all the damage/attack types up front, or can we somewhat readily add new ones as needed?
Will damage types have advantages and disadvantages like CoX had (e.g. energy blast had knockback, fire had DoT, etc) or will the damage type be totally separate for the secondary effects?
Will some types have more area attacks and others less?
Will some types be more common and other less common?
Should an offense set (like Fire Blast) bring with it some sort of inherent resistance to things which are similar to itself (the Human Torch doesn't get hurt by his own fiery body, after all)?
Can or should some things be mutually exclusive? (types of powers, types of damage, resist and defense caps, etc)
It seems natural that resistances should apply based on damage type (you're resistant to fire, so you take less damage from fire attacks, etc) and defenses should apply based on attack type (you're good at dodging bullets, so you get +def to ranged attacks, etc), are there other interesting options?
Your thoughts?
R.S.O. of Phoenix Rising
I think most damage types should be nailed down early...if not then you can find that it becomes a balancing issue. I mean if you introduce a new damage type later and both you and foes can use it ...then you have to consider how exisiting def or resists are affected. CoX kinda had this issue when a lot more foes started using Psi damage....My point is...nail it down early so you don't run into any issues later. Still I would think the hooks would be there so if the devs decided to add something later it could be done.
not sure....I would like them to if for no other reason than nostalgia.
More than likely these will both be varied enough within the game....
Inherent ...no I don't think so.....Given that animation is going to be divorced from effect somewhat I don't see how it would work. The example they gave was a burning set....then said it could be acid, fire or friction. So human torch is immune to fire but not acid or friction (bad example cause I have no idea if he actually is or not). There is also the idea that not all character who use an attack like fire are going to have the power inherent, it could be a gun or flamethrower. If the set had a power in it that provided the def or resist then sure.
I agree with most of what islandtrevor72 said above.
One thing that occurs to me about damage types and secondary effects: in CoX, the Radiation Blast set was different from Energy Blast insofar as the Rad effects were green and they did -def as a secondary effect, whereas Energy Blast did knockback and had silver-white-ish colors (electric blast, had endo drain and lightningy-looking effects). But they all did energy damage.
If you divorce the graphics (and colors) from the damage types entirely, and it has been said that they're going to do that, I believe, then what makes "Energy Blast" different from "Electric Blast" or "Radiation Blast" ? I think the secondary effects, like knockback, -def, endo drain, etc are the main differentiating factor there once you separate out the graphics. The only other way to make three similar damage typed sets different from each other would be to change the attack types, like giving Energy blast more single target stuff and Radiation more area stuff, etc. But then really, the type of attacks you use (area, target, melee, ranged, etc) to some extent determine what type of set it is in terms of archetype or role. So in reality the attack mode defines the type of character you're making (scrapper versus blaster, etc) not the type of damage you chose (Energy versus Radiation).
Is it necessary that in order to give "Energy" it's own flavor in game terms (and to differentiate it from other things, like "Radiation") you need to associate a secondary effect with it that it usually get's wherever it is found? CoX did this. There was Energy Blast which was a ranged set that had KB, Energy Melee had KB too but was a melee AT set. Should damage types have built-in secondary effects to help define what they are and what makes them different from everything else? I'm familiar with it enough to say that I would certainly understand it and be able to live with it.
If this type of "damage type + secondary effect" pairing doesn't happen, then what makes "Energy Blast" not the same thing as "Radiation Blast" or "Magic Blast" or "Electric Blast" etc? And if these pairings don't exist, then how do the secondary effects come into play at all? And if these pairings don't exist then why am I choosing "Energy Blast" over other options like "Electric Blast" or would those two things basically be the same anyway?
R.S.O. of Phoenix Rising
Well, I don't think energy or any other damage type will have a specific effect linked to it. I think the set itself will define its effects...for example they make a set that does energy damage and KB and another set that does energy damage and stun for example...You will get to choose what the energy is in terms of magic, radiation or static electricity so the energy and KB set could be either magic or radiation. Man I hope I'm making sense I'm tired.
I can see tying the 2ndary effect to the powerset.
If you chose a 'Burning' set you get a DoT secondary (Fire, Acid, Friction, Steam, etc)
If you chose a 'Armour Piercing' set you get a -Def secondary (Bullets, Arrows, Ethereal Attacks, etc)
If you chose an 'Obscurement' set you get an -Acc secondary (darkness, bright lights, etc)
The Phoenix Rising Initiative Rules Lawyer
I also like tying the secondary effects to the powerset. But let us also not forget there are other ways for a set to stand apart. Radiation Blast was an excellent example as the single target attacks recharged very quickly but did less damage individually. Since the endurance cost was in line with the lower damage per activation, you weren't penalized for putting out more attacks. Actual variety in performance would be nice to see in CoT as well.:)
I think that what is being considered is to allow the player to chose the Powerset TYPE, then the Powerset, then the animation.
Example (T1 > T8):
TYPE_A = Light ST, Medium ST, Medium Cone, Heavy ST, Medium TAoE, Heavy ST Snipe, Medium Chain, OMFGDIDYOUSEETHAT!!!
TYPE_B = Light Cone, Light ST, Medium AoE, Medium ST, Heavy Cone, Heavy ST Snipe, Medium Large AoE, OMFGDIDYOUSEETHAT!!!
(Obviously the types and orders were pulled from my utility belt and not from any official MWM source.)
Then you chose Burning, Armour Piercing, Obscurement, etc.
Then wand, pistol, ring, floating device/animal/other, sword, eyes, etc.
This way you can chose more or less ST/AoE as you want. Also the attack speed type. Now the TYPES on offer would be up to the Devs and also how balanced they can make them. Probably get a few different TYPES at launch and more after launch.
The Phoenix Rising Initiative Rules Lawyer
I got the impression that TYPE and Powerset (to reference terms in your example) were going to be tied together more than that, but -- dang it -- I can't find the post where I believe one of the devs said this.
Spurn all ye kindle.
Its close to that except we won't choose between powerset type and powerset. They are designing the powersets then offering multiple animations for each....here is the best quote on that...
So as you see they designed the set to be burning as damage type and DoT as the effect. We get to choose the animations. Allowing us to choose too much about a powerset would be next to impossible to balance in the game.
Further in this article it goes on to explain how they decide to split the powers in terms of aoe, cone ect. I think the easiest way to think about this is to think of the powersets in CoX with a whole lot more options for customizing its appearance.
Thanks IT; that's the quote I was looking for.
Spurn all ye kindle.
I figured it was.
SO much of the combat mechanics are critical to me.
Instead of defining damage in gaming terms I tried to define them in terms of all the ways I could be "harmed" in science fiction.
Physical Damage (Blunt/Piercing)
Thermal Damage (Heat/Cold)
Particle Damage (Electrical/Dimensional)
Vital Damage (Bio/Chemical)
Supernatural Damage (Psychic/Magic)
How you define your powers from there is up to you. Some guy may shoot an "energy beam" from his eyes but they do physical damage.. another guys may be thermal damage.. another guys may be particle damage.
If you define sonic energy as half physical and half vital you could do so without making a "sonic energy" type. It's just a combination of the aforementioned types. I define it in 5 groups (an odd number) to allow for a Lowest Common Denominator that is higher than 3 but still low allowing for choice.
Thing is.. this game will likely not have as much choice as I'd envisioned when coming up with the LCD so it may be smarter to break it down to 3 types (physical, energy, supernatural) .. this was ATTEMPTED in Champions Online but it (as much else) fell rather flat to me. But for games that do not allow for damage type you have to try to generalize and homogenize so that certain types are not under-represented.
Still hoping that as we get closer to Alpha they are willing to seriously think of the inequality that comes with their planned frameworks when they are defined by damage type instead of letting players choose it independently. Would there be a PvE imbalance? No more than would exist otherwise.. Would there be a PvP imbalance? No because the metagame of powergamers would be constantly changing (this month Vital damage may be the thing but next month it'll be supernatural.. until people are willing to either Alt for PvP sake or be willing to roll the dice and play the damage type they like for likeness sake).
Crowd Control Enthusiast
I am not sure how your examples really differ from the way MWM is planning to do damage types.
And aside from min/maxing or a very strict character concept I am not sure how allowing players to choose the damage type in addition to powerset as apposed to all together will be beneficial to the game.
I think giving that much freedom will create balancing issues that they would then have to consider.
I am not opposed to your idea as I am a min/maxer and I do have very strict character concepts. I am just not sure the gain is worth the cost.
I've brought this up previously, we did discuss the possibility internally and the difference was between "Do we want to launch within our window or become in danger of vaporware?"
Settting damage types within power sets gives us a lot more control over the expected performance of a set in both pvp and pve than by allowing players to choose the damage type for their offense and defense. For PvE this allows us to, for example, know how often a particular damage type will be used offensively by game spawns, and therefore, how well defense sets function. It also allows us some control over how much spawns resist damage by what type and therefore, how well power sets perform offensively in various stages of the game.
Also, when it comes to testing powers, the more players have control over what a power does, as in changing damage type, you have to test each and every set using each and every type to make sure nothing gets broken for some wierd reason. Or that say, Set Apha is expected to reach performance of between 4-6, but with Types of A, B, and C, the sets reach perfomance of 9 to 10, and with Types of D, E, and F, they perform at 1 and 2 which no set is expected to do. We would either have to address how the Types perform various stages of the game by changing the encounters themselves, or we have to in essense, make each Type for each power within Set Alpha a separate power, with different outputs so that each Type ends up functioning within the original bounds of expected performance.
Even with setting types within power sets, we will probably get this wrong. It happens in just about every MMO, which is why MMOs (should be) constantly updating. Sometimes this results in the dreaded "nerf" sometimes this results in the joyous "improvement". When it comes to getting a playable game in everyone's hands and continuing to work on it, and just continuing to work on an unworking game, we went with the former.
[hr]I don't use a nerf bat, I have a magic crowbar!
- Combat Mechanic -
[color=#ff0000]Tech Team. [/color]
And keep in mind that by designing things on the back-end how we have, we offer the opportunity to explore other ideas later on, post-launch.
Technical Director
Read enough Facebook and you have to make Sanity Checks. I guess FB is the Great Old One of the interent these days... - Beamrider
It is a balance between the freedom the players would like and the control that the Dev's need. CoH was an exceptionally free game, and CoT is going to take that one safe step further. More than that would be risky.
Still it'll be even freer than CoH! But the Devs retain a manageable system.
I think that's fair.
FIGHT EVIL! (or go cause trouble so the Heroes have something to do.)
I've mentioned before that I think making the base rules, at the start, more restrictive then backing off and opening things up later on is probably better. For one thing, when you do make changes, you're adding more freedom not taking options away, and for another, I think you have to expect some amount of power creep and one way to plan for that is to start with places to grow into.
R.S.O. of Phoenix Rising
Agreed. I think the approach MWM is taking makes a whole lot of sense.
Spurn all ye kindle.