Had a thought and was wondering if it had been explored: Does it make sense to have shields give a smaller passive damage reduction? This would not stack with the shield() ability. Picking the right amount, if any, would be important: I was thinking 1/3 or 1/4 of the activated ability.
Are there reasons why this should not be the case?
If there is interest, is this best tested with new Thangs or by editing the originals?
I would think that the added HP you get when wearing a shield would cover the passive aspect.
If a passive block was added “they” would probably want to reduce/remove the HP bonus…
Can’t say I disagree. Although I would argue for reduction of approximately 15 - 25%.
Almost any avid gamer would argue to the ground that HP and damage reduction are not the same or even remotely equivalent. They serve very different but very important roles in game play mechanics and balance. Should I elaborate?
I should state that while I mention “game mechanics and balance”, I do also know that the primary purpose is to teach coding concepts. Considering that it accomplishes this as a game, it is worth noting that mechanics and balance are important to consider as they impact the ability to accomplish that purpose.
Another possibility:
Instead of all shields, a (few) mid to late progress shields could provide some level of passive resistance.
I agree with this because some of the hits would land on the shield and you would get some sort of armor rating for a shield.
The trade-off I am suggesting is that each shield has a chance to take the this.getShieldBlock();
away form the attack and keep the health bonus
My only concern with this is that RNG behaviors reduce responsiveness. The game can already become quite unresponsive with even simple code solutions. This is partially do to the very large load on the system (some levels use more than 1GB).
Another trade-off might be to reduce damage based on current action (and attack type). For instance, if one is attacking, passive reduction to missiles would be very hard. I’m still toying with the idea, and am researching how to make (and test) my own thang. Hopefully such research will result in ways to add progression (more than just DPS and HP) to gear.
That said, if there is a way to increase responsiveness, reduce load, and provide the RNG behavior, I don’t think this is a bad idea. Again, it might not be as cut and dry as applying it to all shields, but as a progression in the shields gear line. I’m certain that other gear (ahem… gloves…) could benefit from similar perspectives.
Well it would just require the game to check the value of a shield when the game is loading
There are two ways to acomplish this
1:Have an entire database full of all the shields and stats and apply the appropriate buff/de-buff
2: Just get the value of the shield and apply the appropriate buff/de-buff
I apologize. I am quite aware of what that would need. What I meant by “hard” was simply “from the perspective of the hero”. I.E. coding it would be quite easy, but from the hero’s perspective blocking a missile while attacking is not an easy maneuver and therefore there would be no reduction. Was that a bit more clear?
Yes thank you but ideologically some of the hits would land on the shield either way which brings back my point in post 5
Ideologically, I don’t disagree. Practically, for large levels with lots of critters, my response is important. Of course, what is practical will change as the platform improves its own performance and load requirements.
Well now we just have to wait for @nick to come back on Wednesday
I think the parts of this that would be most interesting are 1) shields reducing damage somewhat more when you’re moving but not attacking and 2) introducing different types of damage and armor, so you can have attacks that are strong or weak against different types of armor.
However, before adding this kind of combat complexity to the game engine, I think there are about a hundred more interesting active skills that just need to be coded up, which actually get used in player code instead of having their strategic ramifications ignored by all but the most munchkinish players. So if anyone wants to make combat more interesting, let’s work on those.