Bay 12 Games Forum

Please login or register.

Login with username, password and session length
Advanced search  
Pages: 1 [2] 3 4 ... 28

Author Topic: Weapon research  (Read 143379 times)

Wexeee

  • Escaped Lunatic
    • View Profile
Re: Weapon research
« Reply #15 on: April 09, 2010, 06:10:37 am »

Has anyone tried fiddling around with the skills yet on arena mode; specifically Fighter and Archer? From what I read (and how dorfs gain skills in fortress mode) they are skills which have some effect on all mele or ranged attacks respectively. 

But when when conducting tests on arena mode with groups of/single dwarves i found that for Fighter it totally depends on the weapon; with Axes highly skilled fighters beat lower skilled, spears are roughly the same ( maybe a result of their v high impact wounds), and Hammers low skill fighters beat High skill!

When testing Archer I found repeatedly that low skilled archers wielding crossbows beat high skilled archers ( everything else being kept constant). Being quite surprised at this I repeated this one a number of times, and only one time out of 20 did the highly skilled group win. Repeated with single dwarfs rather than groups, same happened.

Then wondered if Archer skill had any effect on fortifications, set that experiment up in arena and found that the group with the lower skill in Archer beat the one with higher skill in Archer in either position (i.e. behind the fortifications or further away from them).

Please note I have not done this at all scientifically or used any proper statistical methods and controls. One major factor which could scew the whole series of tests are the randomly generated attributes for each arena mode dwarf.
Logged

Urist Imiknorris

  • Bay Watcher
  • In the flesh, on the phone and in your account...
    • View Profile
Re: Weapon research
« Reply #16 on: April 09, 2010, 07:08:19 am »

You are right. Looking at the raws, I noticed its high density. It seems platinum does equally well in warhammers, having a similarly high density.

Their densities are nowhere near similar. It's like comparing adamantine to steel.
Logged
Quote from: LordSlowpoke
I don't know how it works. It does.
Quote from: Jim Groovester
YOU CANT NOT HAVE SUSPECTS IN A GAME OF MAFIA

ITS THE WHOLE POINT OF THE GAME
Quote from: Cheeetar
If Tiruin redirected the lynch, then this means that, and... the Illuminati! Of course!

zagibu

  • Bay Watcher
    • View Profile
Re: Weapon research
« Reply #17 on: April 09, 2010, 07:22:47 am »

Combat seems fine to me as is, but it seems like I'm the only one who thinks so.

Hammers and maces break limbs like they're made of styrofoam.

Swords and axes cut the bad guys into little pieces.

Spears go straight through you and destroy your organs.

I don't get what's wrong with that. Seriously, I'd love it if someone could explain the problem there.

Some background information would be nice. I've only done arena tests with dwarfs proficient in armor user and equally armored. They were also proficient in their respective weapon class. And I've found completely different results, namely that warhammers are almost useless, unless made from platinum or slade, which is both impossible in fortress mode. Spears also seem to be not very good against fully armored targets, with many blows being deflected. Swords are a little better, and axes are quite good. They seem to be able to sever even armored limbs.

It seems to be not quite balanced yet. A bronze-clad platinum-hammer wielder wins almost every time against steel armored dwarves, no matter what weapons they have (except slade hammers, which are even better, of course). Every blow seems to break bone, even through the armor.
Why is this bad?

A platinum hammer would have considerably more force behind it than a steel hammer, assuming one was strong enough to swing it. Bronze is arguably a much better metal for armor than iron and is probably as good as steel, or so close as to make little difference. The platinum hammer, being far denser than steel, is going to shatter armor and bones quite easily.

Seems to be alright to me.


What I want to know is does studding a hammer with a heavier metal change its damage? Adamantine warhammer studded with lead = more damage? Impossible to test in the arena as far as I know.

I'm just saying it's unbalanced. Steel warhammers are worse than copper axes, platinum warhammers are better than adamantium axes.
Logged
99 barrels of beer in the pile
99 barrels of beer!
If some dwarves know the way to the pile
0 barrels of beer in the pile!

sneakey pete

  • Bay Watcher
    • View Profile
Re: Weapon research
« Reply #18 on: April 09, 2010, 07:25:22 am »

Sir, I think that you hit the nail on the head!

If I imagine what is going on, it looks quite absurd. Enemy got unconscious, with some severe injuries, yet my dwarfs keep bashing him, instead of focusing on that crossbowman who keeps shooting at them...

I assume real battle is not about killing, but about incapacitating the opponents, and that currently, thanks to current AI, is what makes such a difference between axes and hammers.

Someone else's suggestion was to have squads comprised of part hammer, part axe. Hammers to make sure it's incapacitated quickly and can't hurt you back, axe's to kill the dam thing.
Logged
Magma is overrated.

forsaken1111

  • Bay Watcher
    • View Profile
    • TTB Twitch
Re: Weapon research
« Reply #19 on: April 09, 2010, 08:47:43 am »

I'm just saying it's unbalanced. Steel warhammers are worse than copper axes, platinum warhammers are better than adamantium axes.
I'm going to assume you threw that second one in there without testing it? I have just done some testing and dwarves armed with platinum axes almost always won against superior numbers of dwarves with platinum warhammers.
Logged

zagibu

  • Bay Watcher
    • View Profile
Re: Weapon research
« Reply #20 on: April 09, 2010, 09:18:27 am »

I didn't test it with platinum axes. So it seems axes also profit from the high density of the material. Strange that adamantium axes are still a lot better than steel, though.
Logged
99 barrels of beer in the pile
99 barrels of beer!
If some dwarves know the way to the pile
0 barrels of beer in the pile!

Shinziril

  • Bay Watcher
  • !!SCIENCE!!
    • View Profile
Re: Weapon research
« Reply #21 on: April 09, 2010, 10:21:14 am »

That's probably from adamantine's 10x MAX_EDGE property.  Makes it sharper.

One reasonable option would be to mod in a new metal, along the lines of "adamantine-jacketed lead", that has all the nice properties of adamantine but is much denser. 
Logged
Quote from: lolghurt
Quote from: Urist McTaverish
why is Dwarven science always on fire?
Because normal science is boring

zagibu

  • Bay Watcher
    • View Profile
Re: Weapon research
« Reply #22 on: April 09, 2010, 12:29:48 pm »

I'm testing every weapon made from silver, copper, iron, bronze, steel and adamantium against any armor made from those same metals. I do this by pitting the following dwarves against each other, multiple times, then checking the combat log for deflected blows etc.:

- Attacker: proficient in tested weapon type, proficient armor user, proficient shield user, adamantine breastplate, adamantine helm, adamantine gauntlets, adamantine high boots, adamantine greaves, adamantine shield, weapon of test class of material x
- Victim: proficient armor user, y breastplate, y helm, y gauntlets, y high boots, y greaves (y being the tested armor metal)

So far I have the pretty unastonishing results for axes:
silver armor | copper armor | iron armor | bronze armor | steel armor | adamantine armor
silver axe------
copper axe+-----
iron axe++----
bronze axe+++---
steel axe++++--
adamantine axe+++++-
A negative sign means the weapon is mostly blocked by the armor, a positive sign means it can mostly breach it. Yes, iron is now worse than bronze.

It has to be said, that although most armor blocks well against a silver axe, all axes, even made of silver, are still pretty deadly, because 1 lucky hit severs a limb, which almost always leads to fatal blood loss. In my tests, such lucky hits were pretty frequent...

Don't ask how many times I've accidentially spawned an alligator completely covered in adamantine with a battle axe strapped to its tail.
« Last Edit: April 09, 2010, 12:36:35 pm by zagibu »
Logged
99 barrels of beer in the pile
99 barrels of beer!
If some dwarves know the way to the pile
0 barrels of beer in the pile!

zagibu

  • Bay Watcher
    • View Profile
Re: Weapon research
« Reply #23 on: April 09, 2010, 08:19:17 pm »

Here are the results for short swords:
silver armor | copper armor | iron armor | bronze armor | steel armor | adamantine armor
silver short sword------
copper short sword------
iron short sword++/-----
bronze short sword+++---
steel short sword++++--
adamantine short sword+++++-
A negative sign means the weapon is mostly blocked by the armor, a positive sign means it can mostly breach it.

Similar to the axe test results, but copper and iron short swords seem a bit worse than their axe counterparts. Silver armor was actually quite good at deflecting copper short swords, and copper armor deflected about half the blows of an iron short sword.

In general, swords take some more hits to kill a victim than axes, mostly because not all effective stabs and slashes seem to cause bleeding. Swords are pretty versatile, though, they can stab, slash and sever. They also tend to get stuck in wounds far more than axes.
As seen with axes, even the best armor does not protect against the worst sword that well, with about 1 in 30 blows going through and having a high chance to either sever a limb or open an artery, which is fatal after a few more rounds.
Logged
99 barrels of beer in the pile
99 barrels of beer!
If some dwarves know the way to the pile
0 barrels of beer in the pile!

Vertigon

  • Bay Watcher
    • View Profile
Re: Weapon research
« Reply #24 on: April 09, 2010, 08:53:24 pm »

-blank slate-
« Last Edit: December 18, 2016, 11:02:58 pm by Vertigon »
Logged

Paul

  • Bay Watcher
  • Polite discourse with a dash of insanity.
    • View Profile
    • Need an affordable website? I can help.
Re: Weapon research
« Reply #25 on: April 09, 2010, 11:03:55 pm »

Hehe, if you are decent at wrestling and have a good strength I like grabbing the neck with a hand and then throwing them. Then while they're down choking them. They pass out, and you can use your other hand to grab their head and gouge both their eyes and pinch out all their teeth and pinch off their nose. After that you can release the head and grab a hand and start pinching fingers off, or a foot and start pinching toes off. They'll bleed to death pretty quick, and the only time they get a chance to attack you is when you first grab them and throw them.
Logged
Do you like Science Fiction? I'm writing the Weaveborn Saga over on Royal Road and my website. Link

Narmio

  • Bay Watcher
    • View Profile
Re: Weapon research
« Reply #26 on: April 09, 2010, 11:06:00 pm »

Awesome work Zagibu, this is very interesting. 

I thought I'd copy-paste a post I made in another thread over in Suggestions that contains my thoughts from some extensive but not very scientific arena testing.  This was focussed on "what would need to change to balance combat" rather than testing, but the data behind it is relevant here, I think.  I was looking at how much of an effect various parameters - material, skill, strength, size, etc had relative to each other.  The one interesting parameter I couldn't test in arena mode is item quality, unfortunately.

Anyway:

There seem to be several problems at work here.  A creature stabbed multiple times in the body with a spear seems to not be adversely affected in the short term.  Blood loss takes really quite a while unless arteries are hit (typically in the upper leg).

This is actually sort of realistic, but what is not so realistic is that the creature is usually not impaired at all until it bleeds out.  Even organ hits don't cause much problem until vomiting/loss of breath etc kick in.  Speardwarves regularly mortally wound an opponent then get mauled and killed by it before the wound takes effect. There should be a system of shock, pain and trauma whereby attacks and other actions performed by a seriously wounded creature are of much less potency.  Otherwise the instant part-removal of hacking weapons won't really ever be balanced against the deep wounds caused by stabbing ones.  Sufficiently large and tough creatures should of course be able to ignore some level of pain and continue fighting mostly unimpaired, but right now it's just silly.

A similar problem seems to occur with breaks.  A shattered foot bone should make dodging, moving or even continuing to stand extremely hard.  A shattered shoulder should make a shield very hard to use or a weapon held in that arm totally useless.  At the moment there's a system whereby creatures can lose hold of items, but it's totally binary as far as I can tell - operating normally or useless.  I think we need gradual impairment of action.

There also seems to be another issue with relative weapon/part size.  It's ludicrously easy for an axe to penetrate gauntlets and sever hands, but at the same time it's nearly impossible for that axe to even scratch the paint on a breastplate.  The weapon size vs body part size is having a very large effect, when you really should be able to create small wounds anywhere on the body if you can penetrate the armour - this is assuming gauntlets and breastplates are of equal thickness, which seems to be a reasonable assumption.  This one may actually be a bug, because it seems the thickness or size of the part being hit is checked before the armour it's wrapped in takes effect.  This contributes to another problem...

...Material hardness effectiveness.  If something is harder than what you're hitting it with, nothing ever seems to happen, regardless of the strength or skill level of the attacker.  This means that a copper maul wielded by a legendary-skilled male giantess has no real chance against a fully steel armoured dwarven peasant.   Of course, hardness should be an important factor, but it is currently overpowering everything else: skill, strength, etc.

There would also appear to be little or no relationship between the size of an attack surface, the strength of an attacker and the depth of the wound.  If we assume that a given strength means the ability to impart a given amount of force, then that force hitting over the 40000 area of a battle axe should be much lower than hitting over the 20 area of a spear.  But the spear doesn't appear, to me, to be significantly better at penetrating armour or doing serious damage to an unarmoured target, although possibly its ability is being obscured by the effects described above.

There's also a few other oddities with weapon and stone traps, bare arms, bronze vs iron vs brass vs copper vs steel, the utility of leather by itself or under chain/plate, and I'm sure many other smaller things.  In any case, I'm confident this awesomely complex and involved combat system can be fixed with the tweaking of a few of Toady's formulas, and possibly with the minor addition of a new shock/pain system.  I'm eagerly awaiting the time when Toady gets to rebalancing things. 

In the mean time, do *not* embark without flux, always use axes, don't embark where there might be undead/unalive creatures and finally mod breastplates to include pauldrons.  It's a hell of a lot of fun.
Logged

Narmio

  • Bay Watcher
    • View Profile
Re: Weapon research
« Reply #27 on: April 10, 2010, 02:41:14 am »

OK, so I've just spent an afternoon researching the effects of armour materials. 

In all of these tests, I've used the same opponent, Captain Feathersword, who has full iron armour and a featherwood training sword, but no skills.  I've used a steel-armoured test dwarf who has GM skill level in his weapon (mostly hammers - I spent almost the whole afternoon just testing hammers) for all attacks.  This is so that the test dwarf can attack Featherswordwithout worrying about reprisals.  The high skill level is to minimise the effect of the rapid training that occurs in arena mode.

Firstly, to really determine the utility of plate armour against a particular weapon or material, we need full plate coverage, so I modified breastplates to have pauldrons.  I did this because even with a mail shirt underneath sufficiently long fights would result in bruised/broken shoulders and arms, because of how blunt weapons are quite a bit more effective through mail than plate.

Secondly, something was causing the iron warhammer to bounce off the iron armour for aaaages, then suddenly start causing bruises.  I looked more closely, and what happens by default is that an iron hammer bounces off everything except fingers and toes, which is invariably breaks.  There's also occasional facial bruising, but that doesn't appear to have had much effect overall.  Dwarves need to invent visored helmets, though! 

In any case, after an age of getting broken fingers and toes, Feathersword would pass out from pain, causing him to fall down.  This increases the effectiveness of an iron hammer to the point where it can *just* cause bruises!  This was replicated and tested by creating a series of Featherpants, taking them over adventurer style and choosing to lie down against the attacks.  It wasn't skill gain, it was attacking a prone opponent!  Testing with a maul instead of a hammer revealed much more dramatic results - the maul would totally glance off a standing opponent, but suddenly start breaking bones on a prone one!

After a VERY long time, bruised-all-over Feathersword and his fifteen broken fingers/toes started getting broken hand/feet messages.  Not very sure what happened there, it's possible that this was skill gain or something else, he'd been passed out on the ground for at least ten minutes of real-time arena fighting by this point.

Anyway, very silly stuff, but we've figured out some things.  So, the strange things mostly explained, I was ready to do my real test - how do the impact_yield and impact_fracture material values influence armour against blunt attacks.  First, some background.  These values are set to 1080000 for every single metal!  There's a note in one raw that says this is the "average for stainless steel".  It looks a little like this might be placeholders that have stayed until release! 

My hypothesis is this:  These values are supposed to impact the effectiveness of various materials as armour, but since they're currently all set to stainless steel, they're effectively zeroing out that term of the equation and only density is having any effect.  This creates the binary situation we see expressed in Zagibu's tests.

So, the first thing was to determine whether adjusting the values for iron hammer vs iron armour did anything, AKA "are these used in both the weapon and armour calculations?".  Reducing them to 1 for iron seemed to confirm this - it did nothing.  So far they either do nothing, or do equal things for both weapon and armour.  Nex test, make pig-iron identical to pre-nerf iron and try "old iron" versus "nerfed iron".  Bam.  Both impact yield and impact fracture set to 1, a pig iron hammer goes through iron plate like it isn't there.  Hooray, it looks like I'm onto something here.

Now I figured that maybe only the yield stat, not the fracture stat, was being used, because armour *damage* isn't in yet, and maybe impact_fracture was only for things taking damage rather than just absorbing like armour currently does.  But leaving impact_fracture at 1080000 and setting just impact_yield to 1 produced the most interesting result yet:  The armour was constantly letting through bruises to the entire body, serious deep bruises to the muscle and fat layers.  But no breaks!  Not a single one, where setting both values to 1 let everything go through and shatter bone like on an unarmoured dwarf!

So, it would appear, from these small initial tests, that my hypothesis is borne out:  There are significantly more complicated calculations going on than just material density vs material density, but the fact that there are a load of placeholder values in the raws right now mean that they're getting cancelled out and we have armour as it is right now.

This is great news, I feel.

[EDIT:  An amusing update: I left Captain Feathersword in his yield-nerfed armour being wailed on by pig iron guy, constantly getting yellow/brown bruises to his entire body (skin/muscle/fat bruises, but nothing to the bones), for about half an hour while I went and made some dinner.  I came back and he had twenty broken fingers/toes and bruised lungs, throat and face.  I watched, sort of giggling a little at how silly this was, and he died of *infection* right infront of me.  Presumably they'd been fighting for days if not weeks of dwarf-time by this point.

This means the combat system is lacking a) Haemorrhaging (internal bleeding caused by ruptured blood vessels), this would make repeated blunt trauma a lot more deadly, as it's a serious side effect of tissue damage and its lack caused poor Captain Feathersword to get wailed on for weeks.  Obviously in-game the results will not be so gratuitous, but it's through these edge cases that we can learn what's actually missing.

and b) Concussion.  Getting hit in the head is bad, really, really bad, even if the skull is unharmed, the brain is smacked against the inside of the skull and that is bad.  There is currently no damage at all to the brain even in cases where the skull shatters, unless it's a fracture and the skull is pushed into the brain, resulting in very swift death.  This produces pretty amusing situations!

Anyhoo, I also wanted to say again that I'm not speaking ill of the new combat system at all, just pointing out where it currently falls short of awesome by violating reasonable suspension of disbelief.  And it seems like it's actually very powerful under the hood, just currently in need of tweakage]
« Last Edit: April 10, 2010, 03:55:25 am by Narmio »
Logged

stuntedkind

  • Bay Watcher
    • View Profile
Re: Weapon research
« Reply #28 on: April 10, 2010, 06:02:45 am »

One thing I've noticed about arena mode is that if you add 'iron gauntlets' from the menu it only adds one, leaving the other hand bare. Same goes for boots.

Bronze being slightly more effective than iron is really a good thing in game terms, considering that it's more difficult to make. Really the material value needs to be swapped between them. If its correctly modelling rl bronze vs iron then that's a plus.

I don't think the new system will really come into its own until weapon/armour damage is included- for example irl you wouldn't want a copper hammer as it would just deform and break when used and become useless, and a copper sword would lose its edge pretty quickly if used.



Logged

Dwarf

  • Bay Watcher
  • The Light shall take us
    • View Profile
Re: Weapon research
« Reply #29 on: April 10, 2010, 06:10:44 am »

Hell, depending on the use and type of bronze, bronze is superior in real life too.
Logged
Quote from: Akura
Now, if we could only mod Giant War Eagles to carry crossbows, we could do strafing runs on the elves who sold the eagles to us in the first place.
Pages: 1 [2] 3 4 ... 28