Weapon balancing

Other possible advantages for smaller weapons:

-you don't need to be as strong to wield them
-they're not as heavy (if you limit the weight a person can carry)
-they're more accessible/_may_ require less training
-less materials are used in their construction

In terms of high damage / slow weapons vs. low damage / fast weapons - if the DPS is the same, what's the real difference? I would suggest including situations where high damage hits are preferable (e.g., enemies with damage reduction) and where fast hits are preferable (e.g., interrupting spell casting).

Quote:

Original post by reykjavik Other possible advantages for smaller weapons: -you don't need to be as strong to wield them -they're not as heavy (if you limit the weight a person can carry) -they're more accessible/_may_ require less training -less materials are used in their construction In terms of high damage / slow weapons vs. low damage / fast weapons - if the DPS is the same, what's the real difference? I would suggest including situations where high damage hits are preferable (e.g., enemies with damage reduction) and where fast hits are preferable (e.g., interrupting spell casting).

Thanks for the suggestions but I was looking for more directly related to combat advantages. The strength one sounds pretty good.

It's not so much about slow vs fast in terms of dps but the range of weapons will play a significant factor in combat, as someone with a 3' weapon wouldn't have to be right in your face to get a hit in while someone using a dagger would. So I need an advantage to small weapons that would be on par with the advantage of a long range melee weapon.

Quote:

Original post by etsuja Are these two advantages equal? Longer range vs better attack deflection.

Depends on the options I have as a fighter, as well as what I'll be encountering more of. If I encounter a lot of giant ogres with steel armor, attack deflection isn't going to help me as much as a giant blade I can heave into their skull. If I can blindside monsters, big blades are ideal. However, if I have to fight in an arena against fast little ninjas with daggers, attack deflection might be better.

Quote:

It doesn't seem right that you could parry a polearm with a dagger but I don't know what other advantage I could give to small weapons.

That doesn't seem too far fetched for a typical game. However, there are other advantages to smaller weapons:
- Easier concealment (can't hide the axe in your cuff)
- Better mobility / agility (can't double jump flip with the giant blade of death, can't dodge as quickly)
- Faster attack
- Less stamina drain per attack
- Better accuracy / more control / more critical hits
- Can be accurately thrown and easily picked up

Heavy weapons could have a few other advantages:
- Struck opponents are delayed longer, and fall down more often
- Opponent shields and armor are highly damaged
- Harder to deflect (pushes the defender back or stumbles them)

Quote:

Original post by Kest Quote: Original post by etsuja Are these two advantages equal? Longer range vs better attack deflection. Depends on the options I have as a fighter, as well as what I'll be encountering more of. If I encounter a lot of giant ogres with steel armor, attack deflection isn't going to help me as much as a giant blade I can heave into their skull. If I can blindside monsters, big blades are ideal. However, if I have to fight in an arena against fast little ninjas with daggers, attack deflection might be better. Quote: It doesn't seem right that you could parry a polearm with a dagger but I don't know what other advantage I could give to small weapons. That doesn't seem too far fetched for a typical game. However, there are other advantages to smaller weapons: - Easier concealment (can't hide the axe in your cuff) - Better mobility / agility (can't double jump flip with the giant blade of death, can't dodge as quickly) - Faster attack - Less stamina drain per attack - Better accuracy / more control / more critical hits - Can be accurately thrown and easily picked up Heavy weapons could have a few other advantages: - Struck opponents are delayed longer, and fall down more often - Opponent shields and armor are highly damaged - Harder to deflect (pushes the defender back or stumbles them)

Thanks, I'll take your suggestions into consideration.

In terms of game balance, the disadvantage of big weapons is usually that they require both hands, so you can't dual-wield or wear a shield when you have a two-handed weapon. You also get less stats because you have one empty hand, although some games, like World of Warcraft, gives two-handed weapons double stat bonuses to make up for it.

Smaller weapons' deflection would typically come from the shield it lets you equip, so you don't need to put additional deflection stats on small weapons. Of course, that depends on the settings of your game. If you have no shield ignore this.

Don't forget that you can also include such fun features as having that big poleaxe that lets you stab the noobs in the face from 5 feet away won't help you all that much when he is close enough to kiss you,... or jab that puny little 3inch dagger between your ribs.


Longer range can also mean crippled short range. If you have someone with skills at closing, they can then negate a massive part of that massive damage large weapons do, by simply taking the hit and bulling their way next to them. Don't make any weapon useless at a toe to toe fight, but the longer and more damaging they are, the less effective they should be against the guy that just jumped on your back.

At the moment, it seems like you have focused on the advantages of the small weapon, and forgotten to include disadvantages (although this could jsut be the way you described it).

What you need are situations where the smaller weapon is a disadvantage.

As reykjavik said:

Quote:

In terms of high damage / slow weapons vs. low damage / fast weapons - if the DPS is the same, what's the real difference?

Well you can create a difference.

With armour, if you give it the ability to reduce the amount of damage each hit, then fast weapons that don't do alot of damage each hit will be at a disadvantage against these kinds of opponents (but you have to give heavy armour some other disadvantage like slowing down attacks, actions or movement).

This way, if a player has heavy armour on, then although a dagger wielding character might get more attacks in, they won't do as much damage to them. However, against a lightly armoured enemy, a dagger wielder will be at an advantage.

Eg:
Dagger: 5 hits evey 10 seconds for 5 damage per hit (total 25 damage over the 10 seconds).

Light armour absorbs 1 damage every hit
Heavy Armour absorbs 3 damage every hit

Dagger against light armour: 20 damage
Dagger against heavy armour: 10 damage

As you can see, a dagger will be much weaker against heavy armour. However, typically you will want you quick weapons to do more damage in total than your slow weapons (this can be through special actions/attacks) or the light weapons will end up being useless.

Reach (the distance a melee weapon can hit from), in an game is typically not all that much of a problem, so does not end up as much of a disadvantage. MMO's can't have as accurate a position system as an FPS, because the lag times are much greater, and in combat, the times between actions is typically much longer too than in an FPS. This means that a player can easily walk through the reach zone of a melee wepaon before their opponent will recieve the update that they ahve done so. This means that weapons with long reach are not as effective as they would be in real life, or in a game where positioning and motion are moch more carfully monitored. It also means that basing an advantage on being able to out reach your opponent is not all that much of an advantage.

Besides speed of the strike, you could also consider number of strikes in a combo. I'm currently working on an action rpg, and my 4 variables for weapons have been: strength, speed, reach, & combo. The "combo" rating of a weapon is the number of strikes that can be done in quick succession. For example, a staff can do a 2 hit combo. A spear has the same reach and speed, but it can only do 1 hit at a time. To make up for this shortcoming, the spear is stronger.

The idea is that the weapon's recovery time (i.e. the time that when player is left vulnerable after attacking) happens after the last strike of the combo. So if you use the spear, you are doing a lot of damage but leaving yourself vulnerable after every single attack. If you use the staff, you are doing less damage - but you are only vulnerable after every second attack.

Another comparison from my game - the standard punch and sword. The punch is very fast, short range, & weak - but it can do a 3-hit combo. The sword has better strength and longer reach than the punch, and it can also do a 3-hit combo - but it is slightly slower. The sword definitely feels better than the punch (as it should), but the punch doesn't feel completely obsolete, because it is still faster.

Also, in my game - some weapons can reflect certain projectiles. A perfectly timed sword strike can even reflect arrows. A punch can't do this.

These are all just ideas from my project, but it's something to think about and maybe someone else will want to build on this.

edit: I should also mention that my game is not multiplayer in any way, so weapon balance might not have the same implications.

Quote:

Original post by etsuja I was just curious to see what everyone thinks of having small fast weapons that can counter/parry larger weapons easier and having slower weapons with a longer range.

As you mentioned, I am not sure I can see small weapons having a parrying advantage against large weapons. The large weapons are heavy and tend to have a lot of force behind them.

I wrestled with a similar situation when designing weapon balance for Primordiax. This is not an easy issue. The problem is that game world is never going to simulate all the different factors in Real Life, and as a result your system is going to be boiled down to a small subset of factors. Invariably, that subset is going to bias towards a certain weapon type, so balancing against that will involve a little bit of fudging.

If you can keep the fudging to a minimum, and create a balanced system, that is what matters most in the end. Realism is not more important than good, balanced gameplay.

its worth noting that the weapons reach has a side effect not normally modeled in games. If a weapon is 6 feet long and im holding it 4 feet in the air, an 8 ft ceiling is a bit low, isn't it? In the old medieval times, you didn't go taking your spears and long swords indoors. Hallways and doorways made them impossible tools of fighting and short swords and daggers were far preferred. If you bother with that aspect of weapon length as well as the reach then you have a distinct advantage, even need, for short weapons in many areas.

Those two advantages are equal if you make them equal. Is longer range not good enough? Double the range bonus!

What I'm curious about is, what kind of combat are you looking for? And what are your weapon types?

Your post hints to "large" and "small" weapons. And you want them to be kinda equal. Is your goal that they support different playing styles? What playing styles? Or is it that you want more peaceful classes to have suitable weapons?


In a real world battle situation, most people brought the biggest weapon they could find. I mean, if a thief finds himself on a full-scale battlefield, he's pretty much dead. This hints to us that bigger is usually deadlier in a "fair" fight. So in a game where combat is the main focus, bigger weapons would make more sense. Of course, realism "just because" is not a good idea, but the real world is a good source of inspiration and is very internally consistent.

Most perks that short weapons have are either of the "cheaper" variety or involve various mechanics that usually aren't implemented in games. If they're simply cheaper or require lower level or some such, it isn't much of a choice when you've reached the higher level or got enough gold. And stuff like "Easier to thrust in the eye of a guy with otherwise virtually impenetrable armor is too complex for most systems. Same goes with the (excellent) idea with small areas.

Polearms such as spears are good for beginners. Try to poke your friend with a 3 feet stick(sword) if he has a 6 feet stick (spear). I'll bet he'll poke you first.

Think. Base on what we analzize from the real life. Weapon have these attribute:
-Weight: affect accurate, speed, damage for melee wp.
-Sharp: damage, defense deny.
-Tech: plus some other attribute.
-Mystery power : player gain some ability or st when equip, ie: burning skill.

Wp divided by blunt, slash, pierce. Therefore their effect may be: stunt, bleed, deffense deny.