PDA

View Full Version : Armor and Resistance: Changes required


Baki
01-04-2011, 08:17 PM
Armor:
EffectiveArmor = Defenders Armor - Attackers Armor Piercing
AbsorbedDamage = RandomValue between EffectiveArmor / 40 and EffectiveArmor / 20

Resistance:
EffectiveResistance = Defenders Resistance of that Damage Type
AbsorbedDamage = RandomValue between EffectiveResistance / 8 and EffectiveResistance / 4

I think the formulas need to change. A normal monster in endgame can easily hit for 500 Damage before armor / resistance. To reduce this damage by 20% you would need an armor of 3000 or a resistance of 600. But even if you manage to gain that amount of armor or resistance there will still be champions or bosses which will kill you in 1 hit no matter if you are a squishy caster in clothes or a plate defender who focussed on armor.

I think we need a percent-based formula for reduction by armor / resistance modified by level.

Something like this: Armor or Resistance / x / Monsterlevel (or charlevel?) * y = Reduction in percent.

abomination5
01-05-2011, 06:44 PM
I knew there was a problem with armor scaling but I did not realize this was the source. A new damage formula that scales better at higher levels would bring more balance and fun for melee classes. Percent based absorption and diminishing returns (no 100% absorption!) sound like a good place to start. Is this possible?

Baki
01-05-2011, 07:24 PM
On 2nd thought my suggested formula looks bad.

something like this should do well: DR% = Armor / (Armor + x + y * Charlvl (or Monsterlvl?))

abomination5
01-05-2011, 07:28 PM
On 2nd thought my suggested formula looks bad.

something like this should do well: DR% = Armor / (Armor + x + y * Charlvl (or Monsterlvl?))

WoW uses this kind of formula.

DR% = Armor / (Armor + (467.5 * AttackerLevel - 22167.5))

Variables can be tweaked for balance.

FloodSpectre
01-05-2011, 07:45 PM
I think enemy HP could stand to see some revision too. Currently most enemies at the same level will have almost the exact same amount of HP provided they aren't champion+ status. Vortar Raiders have the same HP as a tiny little Blot...

fiesher
01-06-2011, 02:07 AM
Hey all,

I am all for the revisions if the scaling will provide a better endgame for players.

Diminishing returns after a certain value for a stat, and making armor/evasion relevant (not uber-strong) is definitely something to aim for.

I know balancing the game across the board (lvls 1-100) is never easy, but dealing one-shot kills to one that a HP and Defense-centric character is never fun. Those characters already kill slower than the Offense-centric ones, and if their survivability is roughly equal to that of the latter, then an imbalance occurs and the game will suffer from not being able to have a proper variety of viable characters.

Discussion/Playtesting regarding this aspect is key as there is usually a fine line between making the game too easy or too hard. But with time and effort, a solution will be found.

All great games evolve, and these proposed changes will raise the quality of Din's Curse (w/Demon War) to a whole 'nother level.

abomination5
01-07-2011, 12:00 PM
This weekend I'll try to come up with some suggestions for reasonable values for the constants in that WoW style formula.

DeathKnight1728
01-07-2011, 05:39 PM
What about the changes made to armor in general. Shadow, will skills like armor melt and the gladiator skill which lowers armor, be able to lower enemies armor into the negatives. If they do, then that might actually make piercing armor useful.

abomination5
01-07-2011, 05:42 PM
How much %DR should a completely defense oriented character with the best gear have at level 100? What about a cloth wearer with the best gear?

I was thinking between 75-85% for the defense oriented character and around 20% for the cloth wearer? Any opinions?

Nobear
01-07-2011, 06:05 PM
If you look at vanilla WoW, only bear druids could approach the armor cap of 75%. Warriors (usually the more popular tank) only had about 60% with good gear, but they had better mitigation (things like parry which completely avoided an attack), and more threat and utility skills to compensate. In Oblivion, the armor cap was 85%, and I found that too much. With good gear that you were highly skilled in, the game became trivial and nothing presented a challenge any more. I like a 75% cap better.

If a huge change like this is implemented, I think resistances should also be capped at 75%. Both caps should apply to players as well as monsters.

You've gotta realize that Din's Curse's items are far more random than either of those games, so some cloth offers more protection than some plate. I would balance it so with the current absolute best gear, without skills to augment armor, you achieve 60%, but the cap is 75%. You might be able to hit 75% if you invest heavily in +% armor skills, but otherwise not. Anything higher would also tip the scales the other way to making too big a difference between the armor classes.

DeathKnight1728
01-07-2011, 06:45 PM
Does armor go into the negatives from skills like those mentioned shadow?

Nobear
01-07-2011, 07:34 PM
I've never heard of a game where armor goes into negatives. It would confuse people, so they just buff your character's damage other ways through skills and stuff. Same thing in the end. But yeah, armor piercing still isn't worth putting squat into.

Armor sucks slightly less now for the player, and a Warrior could gain something from investing into +% armor skills at high levels, if he wants to negate the damage he takes from trash enemies so there's less to worry about. It won't do much vs bosses, but it'll shut up the peanut gallery so to speak.

FloodSpectre
01-07-2011, 08:43 PM
I'm wondering if any sort of armor/resist change could make much difference when there's such a huge variability in damage output from one strike to the next. My current character hits anywhere from 75 damage (rolling low, no crits, etc) to 1800 damage (he frequently rolls both a crushing blow and a critical hit on top of a skill that already boosts his damage output by over 100%).

75-1800 damage.

How does one properly devise an armor system around such a wide range of damage? Make the armor function too well and your character becomes completely reliant upon using his special attacks and scoring crits and crushing blows, but make it too weak and we're back to our old one-shot issue (which the monsters still suffer from).

Nobear
01-07-2011, 09:46 PM
What type of character are you playing? My warrior has 100% crush and I'm going for 100% crit on him too. If you want to consistently one-shot things, that's what crush is for.

FloodSpectre
01-07-2011, 10:10 PM
What type of character are you playing? My warrior has 100% crush and I'm going for 100% crit on him too. If you want to consistently one-shot things, that's what crush is for.

A Defender/Paladin. A lot of defense, a lot of crushing. The critical bonus comes from some nice items, mostly. In any case, it's a huge damage variable that you normally wouldn't see in games like this. One exception is playing a Vengeance-based Paladin in D2, though it's still not so variable as in Din's.

Nobear
01-07-2011, 10:43 PM
I haven't tried the melee side that paladin offers, mostly because I find both the attacks and passive bonuses weak compared to those of Warrior and Rogue subclasses. I just know my 89 Warrior's Perfect Strike always crushes for 6.5k and crit-crushes for 13k, with very little variation due to armor. His Whirlwinds are good too, because a big chunk of his +% damage modifiers come from Strength or various passive skills, so the bonus the individual skills give is relatively small. I'm sure your character has a unique set of strengths and things that make it fun, I'm just saying that relying on specials and getting 100% crush (and 100% crit if you can) is the way to make your damage consistent, which is particularly easy with a Warrior.

But I'm getting sidetracked. The current armor system makes a damage range like you're talking about much more pronounced, because since it removes a set amount within a range (instead of a fixed percentage), it will impact small attacks far more than large attacks, and thus big and heavy attacks are currently given an advantage over fast and weak attacks.

With a % based armor system like most games use, the DPS of fast vs slow attacks would be impacted equally based on the enemy's armor. Thus you would get the same DPS with fast or slow (before damage modifiers to individual skills factor in), whereas currently slow gives more DPS.

In short, the change we're talking about would help your case, not hurt it.

Baki
01-14-2011, 04:57 AM
Nothing has been done in 1.014 :(

Shadow, are you planning to change the formula for Armor / Resistance -> Dmg Reduction?

abomination5
01-14-2011, 09:59 AM
This will definitely need playtesting but I've come up with a formula which I believe should work well based on several characters.

Armor/(Armor + (-28*(100 - AttackerLevel) + 2775))

A character at level 100 with maxed out armor should have around 75% DR. At high levels a character wearing high quality cloth should be at around 30%. Please let me know how this formula suits your characters.

Shadow
01-14-2011, 10:26 AM
Nothing has been done in 1.014 :(

Shadow, are you planning to change the formula for Armor / Resistance -> Dmg Reduction?

I am planning on doing something about it, I just have lots to do. :) I'll make sure some kind of change goes into 1.015.

Baki
01-14-2011, 03:27 PM
Good news, thanks!

Bluddy
01-15-2011, 12:15 PM
I'd be wary of completely changing the absorption calculation, as it really is a big change and could unbalance many other things. It seems like the current formula assumes a certain armor to monster damage ratio, and from the OP's description it sounds like the ratio doesn't hold in the higher levels. Maybe the armor rating should just be buffed at the higher levels.

Nobear
01-15-2011, 07:23 PM
The thing is, the current armor formula is already so unbalanced. Since it absorbs a set number within a range, it works well vs the weakest monsters, but does next to nothing vs bosses, at any level. It's just that the monsters' damage scales faster than player health through the levels, and that's why you're more likely to get one-shot at high level.

I think trying to tweak individual armor values to put a bandaid on the current formula would actually be harder than making a new formula similar to that of most other RPGs. Also, with the current formula, to make armor effective vs bosses, you'd have to have so much armor that you'd be immune to almost every normal monster, which takes too much out of the game. Normal monsters in large packs should always present a bit of a challenge.

A more traditional formula would make things easier to tweak, if anything, because a tweak would affect the % absorbed by the same relative % vs any monster at any level.

Bluddy
01-16-2011, 03:45 AM
OK makes sense. It's just a change that needs a lot of work to figure out the right formula, plus other defensive spells might need adjustments to match the changes made here.

Nobear
01-16-2011, 02:10 PM
Of course. Now's the perfect time to introduce a change like that, since we're still in beta, so I'm looking forward to patch 1.015 so we can start fine-tuning :).

Shadow
01-18-2011, 06:20 PM
Well I changed it today, we'll see if it stays or not. At this exact moment this is the new formula:

% absorbed = armor / ( armor + (30 x attacker Level + 60) )

abomination5
01-18-2011, 07:06 PM
Well I changed it today, we'll see if it stays or not. At this exact moment this is the new formula:

% absorbed = armor / ( armor + (30 x attacker Level + 60) )

I'm looking forward to this change very much. Thanks Shadow!

Nobear
01-18-2011, 08:43 PM
That sounds good. That would give my warrior with 4600 armor 60% DR, and Abom's super-geared warrior with 6000 armor 66% DR. A 75% hard cap doesn't even seem necessary with current items, since that would take an absurd amount of armor to reach.

Now how much armor do regular monsters have per level again? And is it any higher for champions/elites/bosses/super bosses/overlords?

Bluddy
01-19-2011, 03:27 AM
Quick excel sheet to help with analyzing the new absorption formula.

Baki
01-19-2011, 03:44 AM
Looks great! Would similar changes to the resistance -> absorption formula make sense?

soemthing like

% absorbed = resistance / ( resistance + attacker Level )?

Bluddy
01-19-2011, 04:52 AM
Isn't resistance also used for environmental sources like fire, traps and acid pools? In that case there's no attacker level...

Shadow
01-19-2011, 09:40 AM
Looks great! Would similar changes to the resistance -> absorption formula make sense?

I did also change the resistance to
% absorbed = resistance / ( resistance + (4 x attacker Level + 8) )

Isn't resistance also used for environmental sources like fire, traps and acid pools? In that case there's no attacker level...

It is but they do actually have levels.

Baki
01-19-2011, 04:00 PM
I did also change the resistance to
% absorbed = resistance / ( resistance + (4 x attacker Level + 8) )


vs lvl 100 you would only have 55% reduction at 500 resistance. even 200 is hard to achieve for me and that would only be 22% reduction.

i think a lower attacker level factor would be better. maybe 2 or 3?

Bluddy
01-20-2011, 04:53 AM
Posting the excel file of resistances (couldn't combine them due to upload size limits)

Bluddy
01-20-2011, 10:24 AM
Well I changed it today, we'll see if it stays or not. At this exact moment this is the new formula:

% absorbed = armor / ( armor + (30 x attacker Level + 60) )

Wait by armor you mean effective armor right Shadow?

Shadow
01-20-2011, 10:25 AM
Just a quick note, the resistance formula that actually made it into 1.015 is
% absorbed = resistance / ( resistance + (6 x attacker Level + 12) )

Shadow
01-20-2011, 10:27 AM
Wait by armor you mean effective armor right Shadow?

Yes, technically it is effective armor which is basically armor - armor piercing.

Bluddy
01-20-2011, 10:30 AM
Updated xml

Nobear
01-20-2011, 05:26 PM
I don't normally bump my posts, but I really want to know the answer to this so I can determine how much armor piercing to give my rogue:

Now how much armor do regular monsters have per level again? And is it any higher for champions/elites/bosses/super bosses/overlords?

Also, what powerups increase monster armor and by how much?

Baki
01-20-2011, 05:42 PM
just attack a monster with your standard attack, wait for a crushing blow and calculate.

Nobear
01-20-2011, 06:44 PM
This post is outdated and has bad math based on incomplete info. See later posts.

I looked in the assets files and I found that base monsters have 6 armor per level, or 600 armor = 16.39% DR at level 100.

So with a base monster, player and monster at level 100: 1 / (1 - .1639) = 1.1961. In other words, if you pierce 100% of the monster's armor, you stand to gain 19.61% DPS. This would require 600 / 25 = Rank 24 Spot Vulnerability. For those who think like I do, Spot Vulnerability would cost 30 points for the next rank at Rank 24! That would take away so much from other skills that it plain wouldn't be worth it to max, if that'd even be possible. To compare, my level 100 Warrior has several of his top talents even with each other in that the next rank would cost 19 skill points. Much more than this in one skill wouldn't allow for an ideal distribution for making a well-rounded character.

So how much does one rank add to your total DPS? 19.61% / 24 = 0.817%. This doesn't seem worth it, but I haven't done the math yet to compare it with the value of other skills.

I would tentatively suggest doubling the power of Spot Vulnerability and any similar skills, so they can be maxed in a well-balanced build.

Shadow
01-20-2011, 08:13 PM
Ok, here's the relevant data:

ArmorPerLevel - 8.0 (6 must be an old number)

There are multipliers for higher difficulties:
DifficultyArmorMultChampion - 1.4
DifficultyArmorMultElite - 2.0
DifficultyArmorMultLegendary - 2.5

There are also multipliers for monster rarities from 1.3 to 2.2 (champion up to boss).

Nobear
01-21-2011, 09:46 PM
Thanks for pointing out the relevant data, but I must report that your numbers are different than mine. I even threw away the assets001 folder of the base game and unzipped it again just now, after patch 1.015. Here's what I have:

From Din's Curse/Assets/assets001/Database/Monsters/BaseMonsters.gdb:

MonsterAttributesMonsterBase
{
...
ArmorPerLevel 6.0
...
ResistancePerLevel 2.0
...

From Din's Curse/Assets/assets001/Database/systems.gdb:

...
GameSystem
{
...
DifficultyArmorMultChampion 1.3
...
DifficultyArmorMultElite 1.6
...
DifficultyArmorMultLegendary 1.9
...

1) Where are the multipliers for monster rarities saved?

2) About the discrepancy, could it be that the patch installers haven't properly updated certain things?

3)
a) Are the asset files unzipped and loaded into RAM (or temp virtual memory) when the application is first loaded, or on the fly as needed or what?
b) Since I have a slowish computer with 460+ GB free HD space, would I get a speed boost unzipping these files and throwing away the zipped version? and
c) would the game even find the asset files this way?

Shadowy Figure
01-21-2011, 11:45 PM
My files match Nobear's and my systems2.gdb file has a different armor multiplier than 2.5 for legendary. :confused: I applied the 1.015 patch already.

GameSystemExp1 overrides GameSystem
{
DifficultyArmorMultLegendary 2.75
...

Nobear
01-22-2011, 12:44 AM
btw Shadowy Figure, thanks for pointing out Systems2.gdb, because I may have found the answer to the goody-two-shoes townspeople problem at high level. Click the blue arrow next to my name in this quote:

Could this be the issue, Shadow?

Shadow
01-22-2011, 01:21 PM
You guys are looking in the wrong place. Things in assets003.zip will override what is in assets001.zip. Basically assets001 is the original data, where assets003 is the latest patch.

Nobear
01-22-2011, 05:01 PM
Ok thanks. Now from patch 1.016 notes: made armor absorb more damage (changed from 30/60 to 27/54)

Where are those numbers used? Does this mean reverting back to the old formula or what?

Shadow
01-22-2011, 05:43 PM
Ok thanks. Now from patch 1.016 notes: made armor absorb more damage (changed from 30/60 to 27/54)

Where are those numbers used? Does this mean reverting back to the old formula or what?

It's still the new formula. I basically just made armor a little stronger. These numbers are in systems.gdb (assets003.zip). The parms are ArmorReasonablePerLevel and ArmorReasonableBase.

Nobear
01-28-2011, 10:17 PM
Coming back to it a second time, the formula suddenly makes sense to me now, nice little formula there!

Now one thing I want to know is: since higher difficulties increase several things including attack, defense and armor, do the percentages listed on the character screen accurately represent a common monster at any and all difficulties? I ask because my Rogue has maxed Dex, which gives her 96% or 97% chance to hit (I forget), but it seems like her actual chance to hit is much lower than this even against common monsters.

On a related note, I have some requests I'd really love to see.

1) A similar thing has been requested before. Change these % chances on the character sheet to be vs the level of monster which the player has most recently faced. Alternately, make a drop down to select which level monster to use, but this could be messy. A cleaner version would let you choose between your level, the lowest level you'll face in the current dungeon, the highest, and invasion mode enemy level.

2) Make a drop down in the character screen to choose which rarity of monster to use for the calculations. This would help players "gear for bosses" and not think that attack becomes so useless beyond a certain point.

3) For special attacks which increase attack, crit chance, crush chance, etc., have the icon on your spellbar reflect your current chance with the applicable stats. For example, when you mouse over your Death Blow, in addition to what it currently says, it would say "98% Chance to Hit; 101.24% Chance to Crit".

abomination5
01-28-2011, 10:32 PM
Now one thing I want to know is: since higher difficulties increase several things including attack, defense and armor, do the percentages listed on the character screen accurately represent a common monster at any and all difficulties? I ask because my Rogue has maxed Dex, which gives her 96% or 97% chance to hit (I forget), but it seems like her actual chance to hit is much lower than this even against common monsters.


I've noticed the same.

FloodSpectre
01-29-2011, 12:01 PM
3) For special attacks which increase attack, crit chance, crush chance, etc., have the icon on your spellbar reflect your current chance with the applicable stats. For example, when you mouse over your Death Blow, in addition to what it currently says, it would say "98% Chance to Hit; 101.24% Chance to Crit".

It'd be nice if they also didn't show the "at next level" info when in your quick bar.

Manumitted
01-29-2011, 01:03 PM
Now one thing I want to know is: since higher difficulties increase several things including attack, defense and armor, do the percentages listed on the character screen accurately represent a common monster at any and all difficulties? I ask because my Rogue has maxed Dex, which gives her 96% or 97% chance to hit (I forget), but it seems like her actual chance to hit is much lower than this even against common monsters.

Remember that a successful hit consists of an accurate swing (the to-hit chance) plus the victim's defenses all failing. No block, parry, dodge, or evade. These defenses scale with level and aren't near 0% for long. 96% times, say, 90% (10% chance of defense activation) is already well below 90%.

This is another reason why fast attacks are better than slow ones.