Damage Types

  • I would like to spark a discussion about damage types, how they affect the game, how they should affect the game, and whether or not they achieve the desired effects.

    To preface - I came to Chivalry with experience from Age of Chivalry, and no doubt many expectations. I found the loadout screen odd, because I questioned how useful secondary weapons possibly could be. As I familiarized myself with the game, I found they could be quite invaluable for complementing a primary weapon and shoring up its weaknesses; having a fast weapon, or a weapon with a different damage type.

    I generally prioritized my loadout choices based on supplementing damage types I was missing. When I chose a Mace, I took a Saber. A spear with an axe. But the more I learned, and the more I pored over The Spreadsheet, the more I realized damage types didn’t mean as much as I thought they would.

    And eventually, I came to the conclusion they don’t mean as much as they should.

    Before I get into why, I’d like to put up some armor figures to put this all in perspective.

    Armor Table

    ! Archer Swing Resistance 1
    ! Archer Pierce Resistance 0.9
    ! Archer Blunt Resistance 0.8
    ! MAA Swing Resistance 0.85
    ! MAA Pierce Resistance 0.85
    ! MAA Blunt Resistance 0.75
    ! Vanguard Swing Resistance 0.6
    ! Vanguard Pierce Resistance 0.8
    ! Vanguard Blunt Resistance 0.7
    ! Knight Swing Resistance 0.4
    ! Knight Pierce Resistance 0.5
    ! Knight Blunt Resistance 0.6

    These values are coefficients; to get the actual damage, multiply the damage by the resistance value. For example, a Broadsword slash does 60 Swing damage. Assuming a torso hit to a Knight, 60 x .40 = 24 damage. Obviously, head and legs have modifiers too, but these aren’t quite related to damage types.

    When it comes to hybrid damage types (PierceBlunt and SwingBlunt) you merely split the damage in half, with each half dealing one damage type. For instance, the Falchion slash deals 70 SwingBlunt damage. Assuming a torso hit to a Knight, 35 x .40 + 35 x .60 = 35.

    Another, slightly more theorycrafty figure I’d like to point out is how much resistance is flying around, as a general indicator of how useful each kind is. Please take this with a grain of salt as there are far more factors to how useful a weapon is than its damage type.

    1.15 total Swing Resistance.
    .95 total Pierce Resistance.
    1.15 total Blunt Resistance.

    Now that the numbers are out of the way, let’s get to the fun part: the point.

    I feel damage types are not as important as they ought to be. There are a few examples I can point out here: let’s start with the Warhammer. I won’t bother pasting more stats here, but most people around here know that either of its main attacks will two-shot any class, with Knights requiring one headshot in addition to a torso hit.

    The Warhammer is a blunt weapon. It’s great at killing knights. The problem? It’s great at killing anything. On the other hand, one can argue that its speed and reach leave something to be desired, and this is the balancing factor. But then, I never said it was imbalanced, did I?

    The Bearded Axe has a similar dilemma; one would think it’d be designed to mow down lighter units, but in reality it’s good for just about anything.

    On the other hand, the Hatchet appropriately takes three hits up from two to kill a Knight, requiring a headshot to take down a Vanguard. But then, all it takes is a headshot more?

    I think you can see where I’m going with this. Damage types don’t seem very differentiated. They don’t have as clear cut a role as they could.

    Should they? That is the question I’d like to see discussed here. Do damage types do enough to allow room for differentiation and roles? Or are damage types too close to one another, shirking their potential?

    Let’s assume for the moment a consensus is reached that they’re insufficient. What can be done? The obvious answer is to widen the disparity between damage types. As an example, removing .2 Blunt Resistance from the Knight and giving him .15 Swing and .05 Pierce. Setting MaA Swing resistance to 1.0 and giving him .10 more Blunt and .05 Pierce. Numbers are arbitrary, but you get the picture.

    However, one thing I’d like to avoid: I do not want to see the game turn into rock-paper-scissors, where just because you chose a mace means you’ll always win a fight against a Knight. Which lends support to the idea that damage types are fine as is, because I don’t think many do want to see that.

    But I would like to see damage types be more meaningful. This will require striking a very delicate balance. If an overhaul is to be done, it will need to be planned, might require rebalancing, and should only be done in small steps (shifting .10 or even .05 around only).

    As a final note, I’d like to remind you that while DPS is a valid consideration for ranged weapons and, to a degree, melee weapons, the relatively high damage of all weapons as well as the general swing -> parry pattern of combat means that hits-to-kill (HTK) is one of the most important stats to consider when balancing weapons in CMW.

    Discuss away! :)

  • Damage types seem to be integrated well with other weapon balancing measures for the most part, as you pointed out on the warhammer.

    It’s true that damage types sometimes seem insignificant. Slash is much worse than blunt against knight, everything else isn’t that important. It gets even blurrier with the hybrid types that pull the HTK against different classes even closer together.

    If the resistances were more exaggerated, HTK balance on many weapons would be upset and other changes might be required to balance them back. Not to say it couldn’t be worth it, but it would be hard to do properly and the result would be a slightly more counter-y gameplay with overall less versatile weapons. At first glance, I don’t like that idea, but that doesn’t really speak against it yet.

    Encouraging players to carry a contrasting secondary is good, but there may be other problems. Many weapons have access to at least two damage types. Right now I think this is working nicely, if you use the damage type your enemy is weaker against you might need one less hit to kill. If this were to be differentiated further, players may (for example) abandon slashes on swords entirely against knights and vanguards because the stabs are so much more effective. I don’t like the sound of that.

    Overall, I think damage types are in a pretty good place. If there’s something I’d consider for change, it’s the hybrid types. As I’ve said, blunt/slash and blunt/pierce perform roughly the same against all classes since the damage is 50% of each type. What if for instance axes had 75% slash and 25% blunt? Or vice versa? Could be unnecessary complication, or could make for more interesting weapon choices.

  • Damage types should not exist imho. We would be better off with individual damage of each weapon against each class. Damage types link stuff together which should not be dependant on each other. Example: the maul issue right now. If you increase the maul’s damage to one shot maa to the body again, it will also oneheadshot knights. Something like this should not be.

    You don’t have much choice in your htk and damage types are not useful here.
    -Archers are either 1 or 2 shot
    -maa are 2 shot, very few weapons may oneshot to the head
    -vanguards are 2 shot, very few weapons (primaries) 3 shot, only the maul may one shot vg
    -knight 2 or 3 shot, sometimes (rarely, tbh only broadsword) 4 shot

    I think it is very apparent that the variables are VERY limited. Some htk values are only for exotics (1 shot maa,vg and 4 shot knight). If you 1 or 2 shot archers does not matter that much, as you will these fights most of the time anyway. So you only truly choose between x/2/2/3 and x/2/2/2. x/2/2/3 weapons are a bit longer and/or faster compared to x/2/2/2 weapons of your class. If you even have access to these. MaA weapon choice is really limited (no x/2/2/2). If players would live longer, weapon balancing by damage would be much easier. But tbh I like the fast paced gameplay.

    this one got too long, so if you want to read something about how weapons can be categorized, go ahead^^ :

    ! This game right now is at a point were 70% of the primaries do 2/2/2/3(archer/maa/vg/knight) shot kills. These weapons all have about medium range and reach, dependant on the class (some are very long but very slow, spear for example). 2/2/2/2 weapons are almost exclusively knight primaries which are in comparison to the 2/2/2/3 group either slower and/or shorter and thus less effective against archer/maa/vg but more effective against knights. Then there’s also the 1/1/2/2 class, which is only available to the worst class (as in no hp bonus/dodge) and has the most powerful weapon of the game imho (the bardiche). While this class only has 2 weapons (bardiche and zwei) it is one of the main classes due to its power. All other classes are exotic and not used much. The only weapons that are worth mentioning imho are the broadsword (which would fit into 2/2/2/3 if you were a perfect headshotter ;), but for the sake of realism i would put that in its own group with its weaker brother, the norse) and maybe the 1/2/2/3 group, aka 2h swords except sword of war. But their only difference to the 2/2/2/3 group is their effectivity against archers and you don’t choose your weapon based on that ;) so 1/2/2/3 is part of 2/2/2/3 imho.

  • I am fine with the current thinking that you can actually play any weapon against any opponent.
    You know knights have this standpoint more hp is our ability, changing blunt so that they are one or two hit will not be understood. And i agaree tha no weapon should counter an entire class.
    Maybe you could give blunt weapons some knockback or higher stamina drain on block.
    Actually i dont see great changes in the future of bluntweapons

  • @TheFunnySide:

    I am fine with the current thinking that you can actually play any weapon against any opponent.
    You know knights have this standpoint more hp is our ability, changing blunt so that they are one or two hit will not be understood. And i agaree tha no weapon should counter an entire class.
    Maybe you could give blunt weapons some knockback or higher stamina drain on block.
    Actually i dont see great changes in the future of bluntweapons

    I want this to remain; where you can use any weapon against any class. But I want to make it so you should use a certain weapon against a certain class. If you took a Broadsword, it should be worth it to take a Cudgel for Knights.

    One of the biggest problems I see right now is that Blunt Damage is the most useful damage type. Weapons that have it are almost always disadvantaged somehow to counterbalance this. It’s the most useful because it deals with Knights the best, Vanguards reasonably well, and the lighter classes never take more HTK for it (unless you’re giving up one-shot capability, which is rare).

    The Warhammer and Maul are good examples of this. They’re universally good against anything; their damage types are incidental.

    It works, sure. But I think it could work better.

Log in to reply