A small randomization in damage + Damage drop

[ChaosTLW]

By the way, I stated that a difference of 2hp for two or three bodyshots is very crazy. We need randomization.

Why? You keep saying we need this but never say why besides citing giving rifles the ability to two hit with body shots.

I could say that a difference of 3hp could make the difference between three or four limbshots. I could even equate fall damage into this. If you want, I could add in SMG + Shotgun + Rifle damage. The current damage model is simply too fixed and too predictable.

Why is that bad?

EDIT: Dammit, Fluttershy, 2fast4me

[Paratrooper]

It is simply too fixed and too predictable model for weapon damage.

thats bad why?

Because a scratch on your back or a bruise to your foot should never be the fixed and unpreventable difference between life and death.

May the odds be with you. Oh wait...

[Gorman]

A 1 point randomization is the difference between 2 and 3 bodyshots, And between 3 and 4 limbshots...

Why is predictability bad? This should be a game of skill not luck D:


You still did not address that there simply is no balanced possibility for randomized values that would be meaningful. And besides that your idea that "In close range, sure. But I wouldn't expect two body shots to kill in the much farther ranges." does not apply. You have not at this point suggested randomization based on range, only a straight up randomization.

if you are to suggest randomization based on distance, then the same argue that no relevant and balanced values can be formulated.

[Fluttershy]

Because a scratch on your back or a bruise to your foot should never be the fixed and unpreventable difference between life and death.

May the odds be with you. Oh wait...

So having a random and unpreventable difference between life and death is better? I must be stupid because Im still not following.

[Gorman]

It seems to me like you have a good idea of what problem you want to solve, but you are going about solving it ALL WRONG.

What exactly are you trying to accomplish?

[Paratrooper]

You have not at this point suggested randomization based on range, only a straight up randomization.

Why yes I did. I have in the very beginng at the original post...
Even the title said so.

Because a scratch on your back or a bruise to your foot should never be the fixed and unpreventable difference between life and death.

May the odds be with you. Oh wait...

So having a random and unpreventable difference between life and death is better? I must be stupid because Im still not following.

Certainly unpreventable, sure. But at least your death wont be set in stone. It ain't fixed no more.

[Gorman]

two reasons;
1) Rifle taking 3 hits to kill body shots
2) SMG usage at long range

Shouldn't they be more directly addressed? For example having rifle deal 40 body damage instead of 49, then the last hit would deal 20 damage which is acceptable (though from a gameplay point of view there is no reason to think that 'who would think 2 hp would make a difference', in a game everyone know it makes a difference!)

As a solution to problem 2 why not simply decrease SMG zoom or propose adding bullet drop.

Besides that is SMG usage at fog range necessarily a bad thing? Semi will still far outclass it, so why bother to nerf people using a weapon sub-optimally?


I don't think damage drop is viable simply because it is crazy hard to predict. And then we need special cases like 105 head damage for semi to compensate, and you need to consider the buff that this provides to close range etc.
All in all it makes more sense to implement bullet drop rather than damage drop.

[Paratrooper]

Well damage randomization isn't a problem, it is a solution. (Unless the problem is "we don't have it")

You mentioned two other reasons;
1) Rifle taking 3 hits to kill body shots
2) SMG usage at long range

Shouldn't they be more directly addressed? For example having rifle deal 40 body damage instead of 49, then the last hit would deal 20 damage which is acceptable (though from a gameplay point of view there is no reason to think that 'who would think 2 hp would make a difference', in a game everyone know it makes a difference!)

As a solution to problem 2 why not simply decrease SMG zoom or propose adding bullet drop.

[re-iterating, accidentally deleted]

Also, the damage may not be pin-point predictable, but you could always trust in a mean value, the very average damage you could do.

[Gorman]

Sure we can, but there is a big difference between 48 and 50 or 32 and 34 damage. Even if we say "the means are 49 and 33" we still have to deal with that the player who gets the 50 will kill the other player a shot earlier, same with the player who rolls a 34.

As I said before (I don't think you have yet even commented on it), there is no way to have both a balanced and meaningful randomized values. Either they will be imba and gamebreaking (49 vs 50 damage), or be irrelevant and pointless (39 vs 40 damage). So why even bother trying in that sense?

I think you should abandon the randomization and just discuss damage drop.

[Paratrooper]

Sure we can, but there is a big difference between 48 and 50 or 32 and 34 damage. Even if we say "the means are 49 and 33" we still have to deal with that the player who gets the 50 will kill the other player a shot earlier, same with the player who rolls a 34.

As I said before (I don't think you have yet even commented on it), there is no way to have both a balanced and meaningful randomized values. Either they will be imba and gamebreaking (49 vs 50 damage), or be irrelevant and pointless (39 vs 40 damage). So why even bother trying in that sense?

I think you should abandon the randomization and just discuss damage drop.

As I said before (I don't think you have yet even commented on it), there is no way to have both a balanced and meaningful randomized values.

I'm asking for a tiny bit of deviation, not a deviation that could roll something from 3 billion to 1.

Of course that was a hyperbole. But essentially big deviations mean trouble. That 34 and 50 example of yours is very variable.

Anyway, there IS a way to balance the damage randomization. We need a type of randomization that we could reasonably depend on. Of course, we would probably need some field testing for this.

That's what Beta stage is for, right?

[Gorman]

Well using your example number, 1 in 3billion times I don't kill the guy when I am supposed to?

Well that is annoying for that 1 time, but that means that 2,999,999,999 times out of 3,000,000,000 it will have NO EFFECT ON GAMEPLAY.

Of course that is using some extreme values, but you get the idea.

If you use a balanced value (50:50 chance of 49:50 damage) then you have a game that is VERY based on luck. If you use a less balanced value (10:90 chance of 49:50 damage) then you are not going to have an effect on gameplay and are just going to piss people off.


Please, give me an example of "balanced" randomization, both odds and range.

[Paratrooper]

Well using your example number, 1 in 3billion times I don't kill the guy when I am supposed to?

Well that is annoying for that 1 time, but that means that 2,999,999,999 times out of 3,000,000,000 it will have NO EFFECT ON GAMEPLAY.

Of course that is using some extreme values, but you get the idea.

If you use a balanced value (50:50 chance of 49:50 damage) then you have a game that is VERY based on luck. If you use a less balanced value (10:90 chance of 49:50 damage) then you are not going to have an effect on gameplay and are just going to piss people off.


Please, give me an example of "balanced" randomization, both odds and range.

Then you do see my point. Randomization should affect gameplay. Why add it in if it wouldn't :/
I guess my example would be the one on the OP, but apply it for the rifle. Of course I could never be sure, because we have never done any field tests yet.

[Gorman]

If it does effect gameplay then it would not be balancable. Why would we do tests if from a theory perspective we can see no chance of a balance.

As I said do you have an example of balanced randomization? Otherwise we are just going to be testing unbalanced values at random...

[Tek2]

Random damage? Propably the worst suggestion ever.
Why not add random crits like in TF2? >_> Because they rape the game...
Why would you give the player who played worse than the other a random chance to win the battle.

I'm with Gorman in this one.

Also I'm curious, why do you want this in Aos?



I'm fine with damage drop though, I even made a thread about adding it to shotgun as a way to reduce the huge randomness it has while remaining balanced.

[Stiivais]

nerf the rifle even more, suuuuure...