Is damage too damaging?

[Lun]

I think the way the MUD handles combat can be a bit too crazy. Single shot weapons are everywhere. People die walking into a room. Across the board, combat is just too intense, and too much can happen in too little amount of time.

I suppose it's realistic. But it doesn't permit for freedom of training, or freedom of RP, or freedom of activities with suspending of belief.

This might be a big topic that's going to have a lot of controversial discussion, but hit me with it.


I think the maximum damage any one weapon should do should be capped at 40 to 60. There's no time for reacting, there's little freedom in hunting grounds at higher tiers without taking "must have abilities" like disarm.

This shouldn't affect natural disasters like trees falling on people, or caveins. Suffocation, energy damage, all are things that happen over time.

[Hakon]

I immediately jumped to the conclusion that you were right, but after some thought I'm not so sure.

I can one-shot things wearing full plate pretty *rarely,* with a massive weapon and Dwaedn Wyr buffs. I don't think it's possible if you aren't using Dwaedn Wyr buffs or a war horse charge (for players, I mean). I haven't tested on chain (chain wearing mobs are kind of rare I guess?), but I would be willing to bet it would be somewhat rare. Even leather can put a damper on massive damage...

So what am I saying with the rant about armor? I don't think damage is a problem right now; it's just most fighters really need to wear armor. I'm not sure about the number of armored PC characters versus the number light armored ones, but if people are getting one shot too much it might be the armor thing.

And on another note, I like getting my occasional one shots and feeling like a super beast once in a while :x

[Noctere]

This problem has been discussed amongst the GMs before and we have made several tweaks to some training areas to make them less deadly. In the past we have had regular monsters carrying perfectly good and powerful weapons, the same that any player would be using. We thought about this and changed their weapon to better reflect the fact that they are probably rusted, dirty, and dull because they were just plucked from a grave or moldy on the ground with the infested. In game terms it means that we literally just lowered their damage by decreasing their quality stat.

However, many areas still have have very deadly opponents and I think this is intentional. For example, a drakolin is still going to one shot you if you have no protection and if a yeti pops your eye with a massive club I don't think you'll do much better. On that note, I recommend testing out the areas you want to train in and see what works best for you. You can also ask your fellow players and see what they have found.

You are probably right in that we do need more high skill, low damage areas which is why Jirato was asking about skill ranges and hunting areas earlier. In a perfect world we should have a low damage hunting ground for every skill range but as of now I don't think that is the case.

[Dakhal]

I've done hundreds if not thousands of one-shots. It ranges weapon to weapon, almost all weapon types are capable of it. Bows are a great example, they do a massive maximum of like 160 damage, so it's not too hard. Swords are capable of it, and not just two-handed ones. There are one-handed swords that can do it and hand and a half that are capable as well. Axes can dish out damage in excess of 120, certain polearms can one-shot as well. Halberds are absolutely insane, but I've never one-shot with one.. in fact, I don't know of any hafted weapons with a blade that can one-shot. Yeti clubs on the other hand... (radical example, but possible). Sledgehammers are a more reasonable thing to say, but they do indeed one-shot.

Firearms are scary, even flintlocks can do up to 100 damage, nevermind muskets that can do massive damage. Oh, yeah. Crossbows. Crossbows can do like 300 damage, it's just absurd.

Even brawling combos can do 100+ damage sometimes. I've actually seen it a lot. (Couple with bear claws for even more absurdity.)

Armour plays a huge part in things, but I have seen people in full plate get one-shot by weapons in the past. This is exceptionally rare, but it does happen. Medium has alright survivability and light is barely better than being unarmored, but it does have some reduction. Basically you're limiting yourself to one of two playstyles- you're that massive Warhammer 40k Ultramarine running around with a chainsaw sword and hacking through everything with ease. You may even be a Tech Priest capable of throwing lances of power and healing your own wounds! Or you're the edgy super assassin that pops out of nowhere and massacres an entire group of people in a matter of second.


Completely random thought, but why do plate helmets provide eye protection? This basically makes them nigh-unkillable juggernaughts. Eye protection should realisitically never be nigh impervious.

[Lun]

Thanks for all the constructive criticism! I do agree that creatures like Drakolin, worms, and meat golems, etc, should have the ability to kill with a single blow thanks to sheer weight. When I was referring to weapons, I meant all, including the ones that PCs carry.

Armor is definitely a factor. At the end of the day, realistically, people really oughtn't be running around effectively naked and expect to shrug off blows. I suppose if everyone wore armor, this whole conversation would be moot. It's a good point that I didn't really consider.

Wear armor, guys.

[preiman]

Even soft leather and fur armor can make the difference between a kill and surviving.

[jilliana]

I absolutely love this thread. Although it's reasonable to expect some people to wear armor, but that is part of why some people who plan to be badass armorless players turn to wearing armor. It's sort of sad.

Is it possible that the archers and other MOB in the Tanglewood area be looked at as well as far as their damage output? If I remember correctly, they'r infested too, just a higher level of infested MOB.

[Kunren]

Psh, armor is for losers. Its not like Taric got all those death achievements because he was armorless, its obv because he didn't parry hard enough.

[Marauder]

Armor shouldn't be a "you wear this or you lose if you don't use Dirt Kick or similar to go back into stealth". I'd personally like it if there were more no armor and light armor ability options in guilds that don't rely on stealth or abilities to reduce enemy rolls to near zero or have extreme, often overwhelming powers like the Mummers.

Almost-forgotten note: Many plate armors reduce bludgeoning damage so much that you have a valid chance of beating a Brofist with somewhat higher rolls than you even if they're hitting you constantly. It evens out there and only there because I've one-rounded dozens of NPCs with brawling because they didn't have anything better than soft leather or leather scale, effectively.

[jilliana]

I agree with Marauder. I was looking for a like button but, well. Anyways.

Mummers to me are a little bit of the exception to the "wear armor or die" because when guarded and when they have all their ducks in a row, they're pretty powerful armorless beings. I just think there is too much of a wide gap between having it and not having it, even at higher skills. That's just my non-mechanical take on it.