Weapon damage is misleading

[notacorporal]

This is has been bugging me since I started playing this game.

The damage stat is generated randomly within a narrow range depending on the weapon type and tier. This value is what is shown to the player, but this value is not used directly. First it is nerfed!

I don't get this. The range of values is narrow before nerf, and it is narrow after nerf. The point of the nerf is lost on me. All this does is hide the truth from the player. Huh?!

I don't care so much about how the values are generated, as I do about how they are presented. As far as I can tell the damage done varies directly with the post nerf damage stat, so why not display this value directly?

[Delmuir]

This is has been bugging me since I started playing this game.

The damage stat is generated randomly within a narrow range depending on the weapon type and tier. This value is what is shown to the player, but this value is not used directly. First it is nerfed!

I don't get this. The range of values is narrow before nerf, and it is narrow after nerf. The point of the nerf is lost on me. All this does is hide the truth from the player. Huh?!

I don't care so much about how the values are generated, as I do about how they are presented. As far as I can tell the damage done varies directly with the post nerf damage stat, so why not display this value directly?

I have no idea if this is true or not but I can never predict damage so I don't even try. I would LOVE it if the damage presented bore any resemblance to the damage done. Good question.

[HousePet]

I have no idea what this nerf is.

[grayswandir]

Weapon damage is really complicated: http://te4.org/wiki/Combat_Damage

I'm guessing you're talking about this part?

Code: Select all

power = (sqrt(base_dmg / 10) + 1) / 2

[notacorporal]

Exactly that. If I understand correctly the *power* of a weapon is directly proportional to the damage it does.

[HousePet]

Interesting formula.
I would disagree that the value is being nerfed, that would require that the value was actually being used as a base damage.

[grayswandir]

I've never really liked the default damage display, yeah.

Another thing to note is that the whole range thing really doesn't make sense. A theoretical weapon with a damage range of 1-9 would be roughly 2.5x as strong as a weapon with range 10-11 (but also be affected 5x as much by armor).

Maybe add an option 'Detailed Weapon Stats' that makes them show the 'power' and the range multiplier instead of the existing range?

[notacorporal]

I would disagree that the value is being nerfed, that would require that the value was actually being used as a base damage.

I have to concede, that was a lazy use of that term. I think the conversion between base damage and power is a redundant step, that is all. I am happy with the end result, but think the display of base damage is misleading.

I've never really liked the default damage display, yeah.

Another thing to note is that the whole range thing really doesn't make sense. A theoretical weapon with a damage range of 1-9 would be roughly 2.5x as strong as a weapon with range 10-11 (but also be affected 5x as much by armor).

Maybe add an option 'Detailed Weapon Stats' that makes them show the 'power' and the range multiplier instead of the existing range?

Looking again, I didn't notice before what effects were applied before and after armour. So an offhand weapon is no worse against armour, than the main weapon, because the damage penalty is applied after armour.

[grayswandir]

Alright, I just sent DarkGod some code:

I multiplied by 1000 for the display because I don't like decimals. Iron Daggers end up being around 1012.

[marshmallowpeep]

I think for someone who doesn't understand the way combat math works, they're gonna see that and think the weapon is supposed to do 1102 damage from up to 1.6 tiles away.

[grayswandir]

Yeah, that's why I made in an option that's off by default.

Edit: (Which I just realized I didn't actually explicitly say. )

[HousePet]

Wouldn't a percentage make more sense than multiplying by 1000?

[notacorporal]

It's really good to see this . (I suggested something and someone did something about it. Finally my life has significance.)

On formatting, I agree with HousePet and marshmallowsoup on both their points. Two or three digits is enough to work with and is in keeping with the rest of the game.

I have been struggling with how to decribe the damage range. The best I can come up with is 'aggravation' or 'potential aggravation'. This is an accurate description, even if it is not so easy to understand. At least this way a player will know they need to look up what the stat means. (Not satsied with this but it is the best I have come up with so far.)

[grayswandir]

2 digits is definitely not enough. Blighted Maul, which PureQuestion says is the strongest weapon, hits 2049 for power - so only 2 digits would have weapons ranging from like 7 to 20.

Personally I'd rather have a 4th digit than just sticking a percent sign there.

I'm not terribly worried about the meanings being somewhat opaque, since they actually have to turn on the option to see them in the first place.