Powers: I need a help! Damage types are troubling me.
Posted: January 18th, 2012, 12:45
Ive been trying to finish off the initial costing of stuff that I started before Christmas, and Ive noticed a problem regarding damage types, as in Bashing, fire, etc.
My original plan was this: Damage types would only be relevant for damage resistance. So Bashing would be resisted by Bashing Resistance, Fire would be Fire resistance, and so on. Other than that, they would have no direct affect: You dont get to set someone on fire just because your power does Fire damage, you need to add a DoT effect for that. I like this because it is simple, and gives you the most flexiability when making powers. If you want to set people on fire, you can. If you want to throw fire around that for some reason doesnt start secondary fires itself, you can do that too. Lovely.
For powers that just use one type of damage, thats dead easy, and works fine. Where it goes wrong is more than one damage type. I was going to keep it nice and simple by saying that if your resistance matches at least one of the damage types of the power, you can use it. If it doesnt, you cant. This is good and simple, but has a fairly obvious problem: A power that does one type of damage is better than a power that does two types of damage, because the only effect you get from putting more damage types in is increasing the chance your opponent has a valid resistance. Which is fucking dumb, a power that does fire damage should be less good than one that does fire *and* bashing damage.
Ive thought of a handful of ways to fix this issue, but I honestly cant decide which one is the best. Halp!
Here they are:
1) Make the cost of the amount of damage the power does to some degree inversly proportional to the number of damage types it does. For example, something that does 10 Fire would cost more than something that does 10 Fire and Bashing. That way, you can get more bang for your buck by increasing the chances your target can resist it in some way.
Good: Its easy to understand, and doesnt change the combat rules in any way
Bad: It still leaves more damage types being less good, which doesnt sit right with me. Also, its super-open to powergaming abuse.
2) Make the different damage types make the cost of certain other components less, in a thematically appropriate way. For example, having Fire as a damage type could make adding DoT cheaper, bashing type damage could make the stun option cheaper (well, stun is a negative cost, but it could make it even more of a negative cost). That way, although you still have more of a chance of getting resisted, you get more options of shiny extras. Its very similar to option 1 to be honest, but a bit more interesting.
Good: Same as 1, but a bit more interesting
Bad: Entirely the same as 1, and possibly not as good an offset.
3)Split damage types into seperate blocks, which get resisted seperately. For example, instead of 10 fire and bashing, you could have 6 fire, 4 bashing on one power. If your opponent resists fire, he can resist up to 6 of the damage with it, and if he resists bashing, then 4. if his resistance covers both, he can resist both fire and bashing. This is good in that it involves less buggering around with complex costs, but could make combat veeery complex if people start using powers with many different types.
Good: Simple costs
Bad: complex combat, and to be honest, im not sure it entirelly fixes the root problem.
4) Have resistances only apply in full to damage types they fully cover, and half against powers they only slightly cover. Using the above examples of a Fire and Bashing attack, if it is resisted by a fire and bashing resistance, then it gets its full effect. If it only resists fire, or only bashing, then it works but at 50% strength. If it resists neither, it cant be used. This is the simplest to impliment by far, and probably the simplest to use in game, but its the most "gamey" way of doing things.
Good: It is, in every way, simple
Bad: It might be a bit too simple
My original plan was this: Damage types would only be relevant for damage resistance. So Bashing would be resisted by Bashing Resistance, Fire would be Fire resistance, and so on. Other than that, they would have no direct affect: You dont get to set someone on fire just because your power does Fire damage, you need to add a DoT effect for that. I like this because it is simple, and gives you the most flexiability when making powers. If you want to set people on fire, you can. If you want to throw fire around that for some reason doesnt start secondary fires itself, you can do that too. Lovely.
For powers that just use one type of damage, thats dead easy, and works fine. Where it goes wrong is more than one damage type. I was going to keep it nice and simple by saying that if your resistance matches at least one of the damage types of the power, you can use it. If it doesnt, you cant. This is good and simple, but has a fairly obvious problem: A power that does one type of damage is better than a power that does two types of damage, because the only effect you get from putting more damage types in is increasing the chance your opponent has a valid resistance. Which is fucking dumb, a power that does fire damage should be less good than one that does fire *and* bashing damage.
Ive thought of a handful of ways to fix this issue, but I honestly cant decide which one is the best. Halp!
Here they are:
1) Make the cost of the amount of damage the power does to some degree inversly proportional to the number of damage types it does. For example, something that does 10 Fire would cost more than something that does 10 Fire and Bashing. That way, you can get more bang for your buck by increasing the chances your target can resist it in some way.
Good: Its easy to understand, and doesnt change the combat rules in any way
Bad: It still leaves more damage types being less good, which doesnt sit right with me. Also, its super-open to powergaming abuse.
2) Make the different damage types make the cost of certain other components less, in a thematically appropriate way. For example, having Fire as a damage type could make adding DoT cheaper, bashing type damage could make the stun option cheaper (well, stun is a negative cost, but it could make it even more of a negative cost). That way, although you still have more of a chance of getting resisted, you get more options of shiny extras. Its very similar to option 1 to be honest, but a bit more interesting.
Good: Same as 1, but a bit more interesting
Bad: Entirely the same as 1, and possibly not as good an offset.
3)Split damage types into seperate blocks, which get resisted seperately. For example, instead of 10 fire and bashing, you could have 6 fire, 4 bashing on one power. If your opponent resists fire, he can resist up to 6 of the damage with it, and if he resists bashing, then 4. if his resistance covers both, he can resist both fire and bashing. This is good in that it involves less buggering around with complex costs, but could make combat veeery complex if people start using powers with many different types.
Good: Simple costs
Bad: complex combat, and to be honest, im not sure it entirelly fixes the root problem.
4) Have resistances only apply in full to damage types they fully cover, and half against powers they only slightly cover. Using the above examples of a Fire and Bashing attack, if it is resisted by a fire and bashing resistance, then it gets its full effect. If it only resists fire, or only bashing, then it works but at 50% strength. If it resists neither, it cant be used. This is the simplest to impliment by far, and probably the simplest to use in game, but its the most "gamey" way of doing things.
Good: It is, in every way, simple
Bad: It might be a bit too simple