Merciless Warrior's Site - Be reallistic with damage( a tip)

#1 Oct 16 2004, 12:14 pm
DeathAwaitsU	A lot of that is untrue.

#2 Oct 16 2004, 12:21 pm
Artekia	This post is mostly useless in my opinion, as people who make their own games will want to make their own damage systems. Also I think most people don't come into a game to be hit once and die, some of the very best games are quite unrealistic.

#3 Oct 16 2004, 12:28 pm

Spuzzum

Merciless Warrior wrote:

Come on, a person who is hit by a sword once will most likely die, a gunshot won't kill a person automaticly. A person wearing armor won't get killed in 1 hit! Just a little tip and reminder.

P.S., this is an exception to monsters, who may last longer.

Depends. As with all things, "damage" is an abstraction -- it is a mixture of nervous trauma (as triggered by pain receptors) as well as overall disruption of the functioning of internal organs.

For example, someone hacks off someone's hand in a sudden swipe from a katana. Though extremely damaging (permanent disability!), this attack is incredibly unlikely to kill, and -- if it was a fairly clean cut -- is unlikely to hurt any more than breaking an arm.

Compare this to a shot from a low-calibre pistol in the femoral artery. This shot won't hurt that much, and the bullet will travel cleanly through the leg, creating a hole in the flesh but otherwise causing little trauma. But the femoral artery is much like a garden hose. Within minutes, if the wound wasn't closed somehow, the person would exsanguinate.

Finally, compare these to a high-amperage, low-voltage jolt of electricity which contacts the right hand and exits out the left foot. This will cause almost no tissue damage, other than contact and exit scorching, but will wrack the body with excruciating pain -- possibly even killing instantly as the brain's receptors are literally fried with an onslaught of electrochemical pain signals. There is a small likelihood that this will cause a fibrillation in the heart, which will ultimately cause a heart attack (within a couple dozen seconds or so).

Potentially the best way to determine damage is how likely that damage is to cause death if it strikes the main trunk of the body. For instance, a slashing weapon will ruin flesh but might not be able to cleave the bones of the ribcage in order to mess up the internal organs. A thrusting weapon, on the other hand, will cause very little damage to the flesh but wreak havoc on the internal organs, since it is designed to penetrate directly into soft tissues. But a slashing weapon is much easier to use in combat than a thrusting weapon.

#4 Oct 16 2004, 2:47 pm

In response to Artekia (#2)

Zaole

Tibia has a pretty nice damage system in my opinion, although it may not seem like it. When you start off, you're given a club and a jacket for equipment. You fight (somewhat oversized) rats and cave rats-- bigger versions of the rat. When you do manage to hit them with your club, you'll make a pretty large difference in their HP, if you don't take em out on the first hit. You'd expect that to happen when smacking a giant rat with a club. The rat, on the other hand, doesn't do much to you. It can hurt you, but it's nothing to worry about. Of course, the damage can accumulate from fighting enough of them without food/healing.

It's mostly realistic cause most attacks miss/are blocked, but when you do hit, it'll make a difference. Let's take bows, for example: You'll miss a lot, but when you do hit em, yowch. Arrows hurt. To make it fair, archers (known as paladins in Tibia) wield bows (of course, but lemme get to the point) in both hands. Warriors use swords/shields which add attack/defense. Most swords add 3/1 str/def (respectively), while shields just add defense. This will significantly decrease damage taken when hit. But when an archer gets hit, they have no defense.

Then there comes PVP: I like how fair it is. Battles between man and man is often times a lot more drawn out than fighting a simple monster. Humans have more HP, and can use multiple different (oops, I'm being redundant) means of healing themselves. Of course, it doesn't take too long. Two swordsmen dueling with the exact same stats will have one winner, because often times hits can be randomised. Maybe swordsmen 1'll be luckier.

It's hard to describe how balanced-out PVP is, but I'll give another try: I logged into my level 32 knight, and a level 60 knight attacked me. Being FAR above me, he got real nice hits on me, but I wouldn't go down in one hit like on most BYOND games. He still has to hit me a lot-- plus, I have healing runes. He eventually killed me; I'm glad it was just a test server! Death on Tibia brings very bad results, since it's so difficult to achieve. You'll lose a hefty chunk of experience, your backpack and everything in it, and a 10% chance of losing each of your pieces of equipment (Wearing only an armor would be a 10% chance, but wearing armor, boots, leggings, and a helmet would be a 40% chance to lose one of them).

#5 Oct 16 2004, 2:55 pm (Edited on Oct 16 2004, 3:41 pm) In response to Zaole (#4)
Artekia	That sounds like a nice system, maybe I'll check out Tibia. 22 dollars for three months? I might actually consider it if I was able to try the game... it keeps saying the newb island is full.

#6 Oct 16 2004, 3:54 pm In response to DeathAwaitsU (#1)
Merciless Warrior	So your saying someone pulls out a pistol and shoots you, and your in hell the next second? And a sword feels like a cushion?

#7 Oct 16 2004, 4:00 pm

In response to Spuzzum (#3)

Loduwijk

Spuzzum wrote:

For instance, a slashing weapon will ruin flesh but might not be able to cleave the bones of the ribcage in order to mess up the internal organs.

Actually, a slashing weapon would do quite some nasty damage if wielded by anyone who knows how to use it and has at least decent strength, which I would assume most warriors would.

I watched a documentary once in which a man knowledgable and skillful in ancient military arms and tactics demonstrated the power of the sword. It was an average single-handed sword, and he used it against a pig. It cut cleanly through the ribs and organs to lodge into the spine where it got stuck. He had to push back and forth on the handle of the sword to loosen it and pull the sword out. The amazing part is that he did not appear to strike with great force.

I would assume it also has a lot to do with the quality of the weapon. A poorly crafted sword might be little better than a thin, bludgeoning weapon; whereas a masterwork sword might hold a strong, sharp edge capable of cutting with little effort.

When it comes to the difference between lashing and thrusting though, the type of armor worn also plays a large role. After all, if you manage to puncture metal, plated armor while thrusting then the armor will have done little to nothing to lessen the damage; but with a slashing weapon you will be continuously cutting through the metal as you continue with your sweeping motion, the armor doing a much better job at lessening the damage by slowing the momentum of the weapon and, if the armor is strong enough and the person not, halting it entirely before you take lethal damage.

#8 Oct 16 2004, 4:00 pm In response to Merciless Warrior (#6)
Kholint	Gun's are better than swords- the evidence? We use them now- 'tis this "technology" business. If guns were better than swords the army would be running around in suits of armour, duelling.

#9 Oct 16 2004, 4:03 pm

In response to Loduwijk (#7)

Kholint

Loduwijk wrote:

When it comes to the difference between lashing and thrusting though, the type of armor worn also plays a large role. After all, if you manage to puncture metal, plated armor while thrusting then the armor will have done little to nothing to lessen the damage; but with a slashing weapon you will be continuously cutting through the metal as you continue with your sweeping motion, the armor doing a much better job at lessening the damage by slowing the momentum of the weapon and, if the armor is strong enough and the person not, halting it entirely before you take lethal damage.

Thrusting weapons can be subdued by domed, or rounded/curved armour, to deflect the blow.
This projects the strength and power away from the person wearing the armour, lessening the damage considerably.

#10 Oct 16 2004, 5:17 pm In response to Artekia (#5)
Zaole	That's the ONLY problem with Tibia-- the servers get full. Buying a premium account is definitely worth it. You'll get hooked. (Plus, premium accounts get in even when server's full.)

#11 Oct 16 2004, 5:25 pm In response to Zaole (#10)
Artekia	Is there anyway to get on with a free account? Like is there any time or something when there are less people on? I might get a premium account but I'd really rather try it before I do.

#12 Oct 16 2004, 6:02 pm In response to Kholint (#8)
Merciless Warrior	But a person shot in the head may take up to hours to die, when a person could just be decapitated. Guns are only used as far as keeping a range away from your enemy, rather than having to sacrfice your head for your contry.

#13 Oct 16 2004, 6:07 pm

In response to Merciless Warrior (#12)

Kholint

Merciless Warrior wrote:

But a person shot in the head may take up to hours to die, when a person could just be decapitated. Guns are only used as far as keeping a range away from your enemy, rather than having to sacrfice your head for your contry.

And for that reason they are better.

Oh, and someone shot in the head won't take up to hours to die.

Have you not played Goldeneye?!?!1/11111

Tsk.

#14 Oct 16 2004, 6:46 pm (Edited on Oct 17 2004, 8:06 am)

In response to Merciless Warrior (#12)

Loduwijk

Not true. I could go on with many points, but I will only hit on the one about taking hours to die from a head shot.

Being shot in the head at all usually means death, and in a short order. Maybe not instantly, but still not hours, or even a single hour. In fact, if you aim correctly and use a decent gun, you could kill the person so fast that they do not have time to take any actions at all, not even to pull the trigger on their own gun when they already have their finger on it. It all depends on where they are hit, but the average shot means death in minutes if not in seconds.

I play paintball, and I have gotten shot enough times to know that you can't count on the shots to all hit a less lethal spot. Thankfully you don't die from paintball, but you do get respect for armed combat. I have taken many shots to the head, including between the eyes. If my experience can be taken as average, then you should expect a shot to hit such a lethal spot (which is to be expected, as your brain is a larger target than your jaw).

All this is only to be expected though. After all, different parts of your brain control different aspects of your bodily function. When a portion of it is quickly shredded, whatever part that controlled is quickly shut down for lack of command. And a bullet travelling through your brain will most likely destroy much of it for multiple command centers.

And one more time, it all depends on where you get hit. Sword, gun or anything else... it is possible that you might not even die at all, or be terribly injured for that matter, as is the case for many people.

#15 Oct 17 2004, 12:13 am In response to Loduwijk (#14)
Spuzzum	[snip]your brain is a larget targer than your jaw[/snip] How many times did you say you were shot in the head again? ;-)

#16 Oct 17 2004, 12:20 am

In response to Loduwijk (#7)

Spuzzum

Loduwijk wrote:

Spuzzum wrote:

For instance, a slashing weapon will ruin flesh but might not be able to cleave the bones of the ribcage in order to mess up the internal organs.

Actually, a slashing weapon would do quite some nasty damage if wielded by anyone who knows how to use it and has at least decent strength, which I would assume most warriors would.

A slashing weapon is a lever (amplifying strength) and can penetrate bone, yes (hence the "might not", rather than "cannot" ;-)) -- but it must still drive more of its surface area into a target. It's more effective at causing deadly injuries than a blunt weapon, but nowhere near as effective as a thrusting weapon. Skilled swordsmen in war would most likely not aim at the trunk, but rather swung for the joints of the armour, gradually weakening their opponent. A thrusting weapon, on the other hand, has only one purpose: to pierce armour and impale the foe.

Of course, as you mentioned, it's still subjective based on hit location.

Also important is that thrusting weapons are considerably less durable than slashing weapons. Pikes, for instance, are designed with the full intent of breaking off in their opponents after they have charged into them.

#17 Oct 17 2004, 2:52 am In response to Artekia (#11)
Zaole	Get on in the mornings, best chance then.

#18 Oct 17 2004, 8:07 am In response to Spuzzum (#15)
Loduwijk	My original post said "larger targer". I noticed that and went to edit it. I must have changed the "r" in the wrong word. It's fixed now.

#19 Oct 17 2004, 8:45 pm

In response to Merciless Warrior (#6)

sapphiremagus

Many good points have been brought up and I'll try not to restate what has already been said.

First, the human body is a very resiliant thing despite common conception. It takes a lot to kill the body.

That being said, the human brain is not very resiliant at all. It is one of the weakest organs in our body, and it is usually the reason someone dies.

Let me explain. In order for the body to die, one of several things must happen:

1) The brain shutsdown/dies.
2) Loss of blood.
3) Organ failure.

If none of the above happens, the body can withstand a great amount of abuse and still keep ticking. Not happily mind you :P

Usually in midieval combat people died from reasons 2 and 3, usually in combination. Today, people die primarily from 1 and 2.

The lethality of a gunshot is not in the tissue damage, nor the organ damage it can do. It's shock. Pure and simple. The effect of having something impact and pass through your body at very high speeds is very pronounced. It's called Shock. The body will go into shock for any number of reasons but the common one is trauma to the body. Loss of a limb/finger, severe burns, rapid blood loss, all result in shock.

Shock is part mental, part physical but primarily is the result of the brain/nervous system. If you've ever played Mechwarrior on the PC, think of your brain/neverous system as the mech you pilot, and trauma as the heat guage. When that guage gets too high, the mech shuts down for a while. Same happens with the brain. Too many complaints from the nerves in your tissue about the damage done causes the brain to shut down a bit.

There is another effect of shock and that is blood pressure. It goes down, a lot. The heart begins to have trouble pumping blood to various extremities (including your head, which is why you see paramedics and other firstaid trained individuals propping victims' feet up. It promotes blood flow to the brain). This is very, very bad. Low blood pressure can be almost as bad as blood loss and the effects are similar because your various parts aren't getting the blood they need when they need it. Cells start dying from lack of oxygen.

Are firearms more deadly than a good sword? Not really. A solid blow from a sword will cause enough trauma to cause shock. In addtion, it will promote rapid blood loss as well, depending on where the person is hit. Last, it will also cause organ damage/failure. If we're discussing something like a halberd, increase the effects of organ damage/failure.

Why then did we switch to firearms?

Ranged Combat (always has been, always will be an advantage)
Ease of training. People make jokes about guns being point-n-click technology, but they're not far from wrong. Learning to use a gun effectively takes a lot less time and effort than learning to use a weapon. A soldier in the US army trains with his M-16 about a week.
Not reliant on the physical condition of the user. Joe Wheeze-cough from the street can pick up a gun and be just as deadly as Bubba, the 300lb, all muscle gorilla from prison.
Penetration. A firearm will generally go through a suit of plate armor like it wasn't there. If anything, it would slow the bullet down enough that it does play sicko-pinball with his innards.
Range. See #1. To add: the accurate range of a firearm far outstrips that of most bows. See also #3 and #2. Bows require decent physical strength to get their range and a good amount of training to be accurate. Firearms are neither.