Depth of injury.



  • Hi guys,
    While playing AOC this morning an idea came out of my mind.
    It could be a good idea to implant the notion of depth of injury in the game to improve the gameplay and the realism, this is very simple, when a sword reachs your skin just by touching it by the tip it makes fewer damages than when the sword crosses totally the body. For Guardmens, it could be the contrary because they need to stay at distance.
    It allows to avoid having a single type of good player, those who know how to be very careful by allowing also a style really aggressive to be born.
    Touch by the end of the sword would not be useless but would also ask more time to kill, what is very normal for someone who doesnt take much risk and plays on defensive, whereas a guy very aggressive could hurt more by making his life in danger.

    ps: sorry for my bad english.



  • I think the idea is good, but it also prevents you from choosing a play style you’re comfortable with. For instance, a man at arms may use a stab or an overhand as their preferred attack. The stab would do more damage from further away, thereby forcing more man at arms to adopt the stab as opposed to the overhand.



  • It is not a real problem. No need to think like it was AOC, no if this is a new game, it would just need some little gameplay adjustements, like making the overhead a little stronger knowing that the stab when hitting fully can also deal more dmg depending of the situation.
    It coud be very interesting. To push the concept for exemple, imagine:
    -You hit with the overhead and it deals 90 max dmg, but if 80% of the lenght of the sword goes through the body it deals 90 max dmg [-20% (100%-80%)].
    -You hit with the stab and it deals 70 max dmg, but if 30% of the lenght of the sword goes through the body it deals 70 max dmg [-70% (100%-30%)].



  • Swords were made to hit with area few cm below the tip, hitting with middle of the blade or with area close to crossguard were less damaging, not more damaging.



  • Not convinced, in simple theory the fact is if the sword crosses more flesh (without taking in consideration the amount of strenght necessary in addition), it should logically do more dmg by touching vital organs and infliging more profound wounds.
    In a general way, the sword will not just touch by the tip in chivalry the game, considering it as already not very realistic and as it wants to be a “hollywood” medieval game, i found interesting to make it aim more towards hollywood’s realism that making it strictly realistic now that this way has been taken. I don’t know if you get what i mean.



  • I’m not sure I understand your last argument. It’s not because it’s supposed to be Hollywood realism that any kind of realism has to forcibly be thrown overboard, especially not when it just doesn’t make sense.

    If you hit an opponent at three quarters of your blades length (one quarter being behind him), I’d say you’re already hitting vital organs aplenty. Any more sword will just stick out behind him and do no real damage, and you’re getting yourself some nasty leverage to deal with.

    Giving weapons a certain ‘optimum range’ is a good idea though. If you go further away from that optimum range, whether that is towards the tip or the hilt, will decrease the efficiency of your blow. That way, both of your ideas are somewhat retained, in a logical way as well.


  • Developer

    This idea has been suggested a lot, but I honestly feel like its only good on paper. The reason is because the implementation of such a system would lead to frustration for players not understanding why their strikes did not land, since lag can never be fully compensated for, there will always be a slightly different perspective of distance between the players. So unfortunately its just something that I don’t think would play out well given the limitations of modern hardware and networking.



  • @Tibberius:

    This idea has been suggested a lot, but I honestly feel like its only good on paper. The reason is because the implementation of such a system would lead to frustration for players not understanding why their strikes did not land, since lag can never be fully compensated for, there will always be a slightly different perspective of distance between the players. So unfortunately its just something that I don’t think would play out well given the limitations of modern hardware and networking.

    They can shock**horror learn from their mistakes and find out how to attack right. About lag issue, this can be made in less strict form to compensate lag somehow. It’s worth implementing imo. Just like the other sweet spots (attack deal less damage at the start and at the end of animation/simulation).

    It is somehow intuitive, and people tend to figure it out, at least in M&B they did. UDK is better platform, so it should be less problematic than on M&B engine.



  • there’s attacking properly, and dealing with lag, which is different on EVERY server you go on. you can hit someone properly, but with lag compensation it could count as something completely different. making a game that works is A LOT different than making a game realistic.



  • @Vox:

    there’s attacking properly, and dealing with lag, which is different on EVERY server you go on. you can hit someone properly, but with lag compensation it could count as something completely different. making a game that works is A LOT different than making a game realistic.

    It’s mostly problem of US and Canadian players, in EU, most players will have reasonable pings.



  • EU players will have just as much problem on a NA server that a NA player would have on an EU server. it was really obvious with the dev lead AoC tourny



  • @Vox:

    EU players will have just as much problem on a NA server that a NA player would have on an EU server. it was really obvious with the dev lead AoC tourny

    I bet EU players will play on their servers and not interfere with NA folks. Devs don’t have to make a game that works well with 150 ping.



  • EU players played ALL the time with NA players in AoC, why wouldn’t they in CBA? Vanquish has 2 EU players, and 2 Russian players, along with Canadian and American players. and yes they would, just because you’re in the same country doesn’t mean you have perfect ping.



  • @Vox:

    EU players played ALL the time with NA players in AoC, why wouldn’t they in CBA? Vanquish has 2 EU players, and 2 Russian players, along with Canadian and American players. and yes they would, just because you’re in the same country doesn’t mean you have perfect ping.

    Decreasing quality of product to just allow people play with folks across the ocean is not something that i support. Splitting the playerbase to make combat better is imo very sensible choice.



  • @Tibberius:

    This idea has been suggested a lot, but I honestly feel like its only good on paper. The reason is because the implementation of such a system would lead to frustration for players not understanding why their strikes did not land, since lag can never be fully compensated for, there will always be a slightly different perspective of distance between the players. So unfortunately its just something that I don’t think would play out well given the limitations of modern hardware and networking.

    it’s not decreasing game quality, it’s dealing with lag, no matter what YOU WILL HAVE SOME so trying to make something as precise as that type of system would just not work good in a game, even though it sounds really good on paper. and again, making a game that works, is A LOT different then making a game amazingly realistic.



  • @Vox:

    it’s not decreasing game quality, it’s dealing with lag, no matter what YOU WILL HAVE SOME so trying to make something as precise as that type of system would just not work good in a game, even though it sounds really good on paper. and again, making a game that works, is A LOT different then making a game amazingly realistic.

    Devs have some target lag spreed: if it is 20-60, devs can expect to pull of some precise system, as they don’t have to compensate for the lag much. If it’s 50-200, the system have to be less precise as they expect more latency issues. In this sense, aiming for better ping and dividing the playerbase is reasonable choice, understand ?



  • yes, but that’s not how you make a game


  • Developer

    I do not believe the feature would work as intended, not just for reasons of lag but also just due to perceptual bias (peoples belief that they are performing things better than they are, and thus blaming external factors). I think that people would perceive the feature to actually be a flaw in the game and that it would impact their opinion of the quality and robustness of the game. It’s not something we’re considering including in the game for those reasons, I believe the inclusion of this feature would degrade the quality of the game for most players, and not the other way around.



  • To add to the lag discussion. I’m American and live within a reasonable distance to our server and I lag horribly. Ask Vox.



  • @UrLukur:

    Decreasing quality of product to just allow people play with folks across the ocean is not something that i support. Splitting the playerbase to make combat better is imo very sensible choice.

    Personally, I lean in the opposite direction on this one; I play AoC on UK and Aussie servers all the time. I may not be representative of most players tho, as I really get around. They tell me I’ve got a bad reputation. Something about the village bicycle and everybody having a ride.

    The injury depth idea is cool though, if there was a way to implement it effectively. It would lead to some great Black Knight-style banter about fleshwounds and whatnot.


Log in to reply