Bonus DMG only applying to Max DMG

[Arklash]

I would like to have your thoughts on this.

Since it's the case for both Battleforce and HoS I take it's a kind of trademark of the brothers.

However I am not a big fan of it as it can lead to a great deal of unreliability. I get the point that it's more reallistic in a way, shit happens even to the most experienced fighters of the federations.
The issue is the chances that you would hit in say the "low damage range", "medium range" and "high range" are,according to my testing, equal.
It can translate into a big damage roller coaster.
And then not that "realistic" anymore IMO. We are talking of generations of experience here. You would expect Templars to have attained a very high level of mastery in their trade. Coupled to having probably already experienced any given situation at some point. Well it should lead to well... more consistancy don't you think?
On top of this it becomes more and more of an issue as you progress into the game and start to get a very wide damage range (high level buffs and talents).

It has a tabletop feel however. So if it's really a game design choice, I am cool with it.
Lastly, I got to admit that it does add a layer of planning: you always need a plan B, if the templar you sent getting rid of a big threat hit min dmg well... Things could go wrong big time! On a side note it also add a great deal of frustration!

What about you guys? Did any of you have been bothered by the unreliability or on the opposite are you enjoying the thrill of RNG?

[Cory Trese]

Sorry you are not a big fan.

I do get that gut feel thing about RNG, but for us it is just about the math.

[drspendlove]

I mean, you could've made the bonuses half as large and increased the damage by a set amount, rather than 0 to the amount. I'm fine with it as variable as it is, but there's multiple ways to reach the same expected value. (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Expected_value)

[Cory Trese]

Over my head, I barely graduated high school.

I just make games.

[Arklash]

Nov 22, 2017 0:17:58 GMT -5 Cory Trese said:

Sorry you are not a big fan.

I do get that gut feel thing about RNG, but for us it is just about the math.

No worries! If it's a game design choice I am fine with it. I mean it's your game afterall. Plus I am probably some kind of reliability freak lol.

[Cory Trese]

Another way to look at it is that we have discovered a yet untapped reserve of possible equipment and buffs.

Perhaps a reliable base damage buff, if one doesn't already exist somewhere, could be added. We could build a new type of spec for one of the classes around it.

Some TBF master may also come in and point out existing low probability / low RNG builds for late game.

[fallen]

Everyone likes reliability in numbers, but it doesn't lead to the results we wanted in the game. Adding to the base damage really ruins the important of weapons' base damage. It sounds like a simple change, but it is a really critical part of the entire Req Tree that a weapon can increase a base damage stat in a way that you can't get elsewhere. If you start adding to base damage, poof. Anyway -- it destabilizes the entire game's balance to make that change.

[drspendlove]

I agree, fallen. I think while you could make that change, the game is balanced around spikes of damage that give it another dimension of complexity and interest for me. You *could* make the expected value the same, but the probability distribution is (almost by definition) different with the base damage increased and the maximum halved. And altering the probability distribution wouldn't be attractive.

That said, you might be able to add a branch of a single class' skills that take a reliability approach, but it shouldn't be the mainstay of the game engine.