Welcome

Please register for Total War Access to use the forums. If you're an existing user, your forum details will be merged with Total War Access if you register with the same email or username. For more information please read our FAQ’s here.

Categories

Single Entities and how splash attacks do damage

KayosivKayosiv Senior MemberPosts: 2,468Registered Users
I realize the unlikelihood of major underlying game mechanics like splash attack damage being changed, but I wanted a discussion on it anyway because I really do feel like it is the right direction for this game to go.

As a preface, right now, single entity such as a monster or character or low entity units such as monstrous infantry or monstrous cavalry, have splash attacks. So if the troll does 100 damage and has a splash attack maximum of 4, if there's four targets in range of it's attack animation, it will do 25 damage to each. If there was two it would do 50 damage to each and if there was one it would do 100 damage to each. That is, if they hit.

To determine if an attack hits in TWW2, I believe the formula is (attack stat + 30) - (enemy defense stat) = chance to hit. There's other things to factor in here like charge bonus and unit facing, fatique etc. but the point is that in Warhammer, attacks either hit or they don't.

I think this is actually a bit problem, because when you get into the bigger monsters and strong characters, we're seeing each of their attacks hit for 400-600 damage. With an average attack interval of around 4 seconds, that means that in a span of 20 seconds a single entity with reasonable hitting power can do 2,000 damage... or nothing, depending if they hit or miss all of their attacks. This I think, is far too big of a variance, and also looks bad when a huge monster takes a swing at a hero, sends them flying or knocks them over, and does 0 damage.

My proposed change: Make each splash attack number roll separately, even when hitting a single entity.
So say you have a monster that does 500 damage and has a splash max of 5. Instead of rolling a single hit/miss check when attacking another monster, it would roll 5 hit/miss checks, each for 1/5 it's damage, every time. This would make successive big hits less likely to occur, successive misses less likely to occur, and lower damage but also even it out more across the board. I think this is a good idea to take incentive away from burst damage and alpha strikes and being able to rely on average performance, much like every multiple-entity unit in the game already does, and much like monsters currently already do vs multiple entity units. It's the single entity vs single entity combat that this change would apply to and I think it will help the game to make it less bursty, less streaky, and more in-line with how all other combat in the game works.


Space Frontier is a sci-fi themed board game I've designed for 2-4 players. Please take a look and enjoy our free Print-and-Play at FreezeDriedGames.com

If you have any questions about tactics or mechanics in Total War Warhammer multiplayer, feel free to PM me.

Comments

  • KranoxKranox Posts: 3,075Registered Users
    That would be much much much better and would actually balance out single entities duel, making it much better and well rounded.
  • Lotus_MoonLotus_Moon Posts: 5,116Registered Users
    This would be a buff to monsters though, is this what you want to achieve?
  • Green0Green0 Posts: 2,430Registered Users
    do monsters really need this change? Is there any monster in the game that is currently game-breaking (high pick- and win-rate)?

    If the answer is no, I don't see why we should change how things work.
  • KayosivKayosiv Senior Member Posts: 2,468Registered Users

    This would be a buff to monsters though, is this what you want to achieve?

    How so?
    Green0 said:

    do monsters really need this change? Is there any monster in the game that is currently game-breaking (high pick- and win-rate)?

    If the answer is no, I don't see why we should change how things work.

    This is far less about buffing or nerfing things and more about making visuals line up with actual occurrence, and lowering both the RNG depends streaks of units being killed super fast or miss streaks causing unexpected swings in combat performance.

    It's definitely not a change that needs to happen, but I think it would make the game slightly better if it did.
    Space Frontier is a sci-fi themed board game I've designed for 2-4 players. Please take a look and enjoy our free Print-and-Play at FreezeDriedGames.com

    If you have any questions about tactics or mechanics in Total War Warhammer multiplayer, feel free to PM me.
  • Disposable HeroDisposable Hero Posts: 2,112Registered Users
    I am not sure I want it more predictable to be honest, quite happy the way it is. Spices it up a little for me, and sometimes you want to take a chance and hope for a miracle.
  • ApolyonApolyon Posts: 15Registered Users
    I agree with @Kayosiv this change in the damage dealing system could be intresting and probably. Moreover it's a more logical system. However it implies a multiplication of computation for each monster by the number of possible target. In order to keep the game in its state of balance, WS should be lowered for monster and monstruous entity.
  • PocmanPocman Posts: 2,376Registered Users
    It already works that way when attacking infantry.


    I don't really know if it makes sense in duels: it would reduce RNG, which is a good thing, but immersion wise not so much.

    This would be a buff to monsters though, is this what you want to achieve?

    Not really a buff but a way of avoiding performance spikes.
  • mightygloinmightygloin Posts: 368Registered Users
    Something like this could also work better for monsters like hydra and kharibdyss which have many heads individually attacking.
  • ystyst Posts: 4,259Registered Users
    More consistentcy, its a great thing to have.

    No one like seeing 0 dmg all the time and then a burst as if breaks immersion. Anyway this has 0 impact to dmg output, shouldve been this way all along. Instead of using 2 sets of calculations, one for multiple and other for single.
    https://imgur.com/a/Cj4b9
    Top #3 Leaderboard on Warhammer Totalwar.
    Unit stats compare courtesy of Seal62 https://total-war-unit-compare.herokuapp.com/
  • KaffeemannKaffeemann Posts: 31Registered Users
    I agree.

    The randomness in single entity combat is already very high: unit behaviour, animations, stagger, knock-downs, ragolls, etc. Add the all-or-nothing hit rolls and it feels like the outcome of dues between single entities is out of your control. A couple unlucky misses and a couple lucks hits can decide a battle.

    What's also bad is that the animations don't support misses. Every attack looks like it hits. It's weird to see Kholek smash his giant hammer on someones head only to realize that the unit took no damage.

    I'd prefer a fully deterministic system. So instead of hitting 50% of the time a unit would hit every time for 50% of the damage. You can interpret it as a hit that was partially blocked or dodged by the enemy.
    Higher MD = block/dodge more of the damage.
  • Lotus_MoonLotus_Moon Posts: 5,116Registered Users
    I see it as a buff as it would make their performance much more consistant, at the moment they are hit or miss vs a say a mage or low HP monster, with those changes their performance vs those targets would improve drastically while vs high HP mosnters/lords it would be similar to what it is now.
  • Disposable HeroDisposable Hero Posts: 2,112Registered Users

    I agree.

    The randomness in single entity combat is already very high: unit behaviour, animations, stagger, knock-downs, ragolls, etc. Add the all-or-nothing hit rolls and it feels like the outcome of dues between single entities is out of your control. A couple unlucky misses and a couple lucks hits can decide a battle.

    What's also bad is that the animations don't support misses. Every attack looks like it hits. It's weird to see Kholek smash his giant hammer on someones head only to realize that the unit took no damage.

    I'd prefer a fully deterministic system. So instead of hitting 50% of the time a unit would hit every time for 50% of the damage. You can interpret it as a hit that was partially blocked or dodged by the enemy.
    Higher MD = block/dodge more of the damage.

    Easier to predict outcome, but that also makes it more repetitive and dull, and less dramatic for casters. Instead of big hit from kholek or mage miraculously dodges you get the usual hit, nothing to see move along. Not knowing the outcome of every engagement before it happens does liven things up IMO.
  • KaffeemannKaffeemann Posts: 31Registered Users


    Easier to predict outcome, but that also makes it more repetitive and dull, and less dramatic for casters. Instead of big hit from kholek or mage miraculously dodges you get the usual hit, nothing to see move along. Not knowing the outcome of every engagement before it happens does liven things up IMO.

    There're already a billion variables in play in single entity combat. Duels between equally powerful units are already barely predictable.
    You say the current system livens things up, I say it makes duels frustrating and too random.
  • Disposable HeroDisposable Hero Posts: 2,112Registered Users
    Well, we disagree. I don't think the current to hit rolls are a problem, however I do think there are problems with some animations, staggering and weird stunlock problems, but that is something different and it is being addressed with recent attention to the staggering resists.
  • c0rvusc0rvus Posts: 192Registered Users
    Hit rolls in my options are not a good game design choice for only small quantities of occurrences, there are certainly better models or mechanics that are suitable for that scenario tho I doubt that they would change what is not detriment enough to be claimed as a problem. And I don't really think OP's suggestion can be considered as buff to single entity units. 1 hit roll can sometimes be more prolific or not at all when you whiff all your attacks. Sometimes it can even be frustrating especially 1 or 2 chances is all you get at certain time to deal damage to a character, your game plan kinda depends on it.
  • Green0Green0 Posts: 2,430Registered Users
    edited February 13
    c0rvus said:

    Hit rolls in my options are not a good game design choice for only small quantities of occurrences, there are certainly better models or mechanics that are suitable for that scenario tho I doubt that they would change what is not detriment enough to be claimed as a problem. And I don't really think OP's suggestion can be considered as buff to single entity units. 1 hit roll can sometimes be more prolific or not at all when you whiff all your attacks. Sometimes it can even be frustrating especially 1 or 2 chances is all you get at certain time to deal damage to a character, your game plan kinda depends on it.

    tabletop had to hit rolls of similar nature. It can also be argued that a bit of luck spices games up. If this game was fully deterministic, it wouldn’t differ from chess. If you dislike the RNG associated with single entities, you can always limit yourself to cavalry and infantry. I think it’s good design, having each of the splash attacks hit separately would make a Giant (say) resemble an infantry unit in some ways, only with bigger hitbox and more mass
  • PocmanPocman Posts: 2,376Registered Users
    Green0 said:

    c0rvus said:

    Hit rolls in my options are not a good game design choice for only small quantities of occurrences, there are certainly better models or mechanics that are suitable for that scenario tho I doubt that they would change what is not detriment enough to be claimed as a problem. And I don't really think OP's suggestion can be considered as buff to single entity units. 1 hit roll can sometimes be more prolific or not at all when you whiff all your attacks. Sometimes it can even be frustrating especially 1 or 2 chances is all you get at certain time to deal damage to a character, your game plan kinda depends on it.

    tabletop had to hit rolls of similar nature. It can also be argued that a bit of luck spices games up. If this game was fully deterministic, it wouldn’t differ from chess. If you dislike the RNG associated with single entities, you can always limit yourself to cavalry and infantry. I think it’s good design, having each of the splash attacks hit separately would make a Giant (say) resemble an infantry unit in some ways, only with bigger hitbox and more mass
    Yep, but table top also had the "number of attacks". A monster or lord usually had at least 5 attacks. Which meant that the RNG aspect in monster and lord duels was mitigated.

    I do agree that the real problem, as @Disposable Hero says, is the randomness of certain animations. Certain units have double hits, others automatically trigger the "flanked" penalties with some attacks (dragons in mid air, and I think carnosaurs), others have strange animations that seem to make them immune to mass, while others seem to reduce mass to zero... it's a bit of a mess.
  • c0rvusc0rvus Posts: 192Registered Users
    Green0 said:

    c0rvus said:

    Hit rolls in my options are not a good game design choice for only small quantities of occurrences, there are certainly better models or mechanics that are suitable for that scenario tho I doubt that they would change what is not detriment enough to be claimed as a problem. And I don't really think OP's suggestion can be considered as buff to single entity units. 1 hit roll can sometimes be more prolific or not at all when you whiff all your attacks. Sometimes it can even be frustrating especially 1 or 2 chances is all you get at certain time to deal damage to a character, your game plan kinda depends on it.

    If this game was fully deterministic, it wouldn’t differ from chess. If you dislike the RNG associated with single entities, you can always limit yourself to cavalry and infantry.
    This right here I'm not sure I follow. Suggesting my alternative to single entities low effectiveness (provided with the perspective that one does not see RNG or a gamble mechanic has substantiate amount value within it, although I was not trying to imply any of it) is to replace it with other unit from other classes rather than supplement it with support from unit that has same characteristics, is presumptuous and unimaginative. These unit's roles can (mostly) not be interchangeable, width, size, mass, damage, health and maneuverability all things considered. I was not expect that from a seasoned player like you or did I miss something there? The characteristics of single entity damage dealing type, is that it has high impact at relatively low frequency. Given that hit roll is what in this game that took to register a hit, most people has already found ways to actively avoid unwanted outcome by for instance to choose to compensate that with a strategy known as "goon squad". It is not only because it adds damage potential, it's also more reliable and consistent more rolls involves in order to grind hit chances. It's not that different from OP's method only this time it took just 1 unit.

    Onto the game design talk. Tabletop games, chess and total war are designed very differently which involves different thought processes. The most important aspect in RTS game is its timing and execution which is an aspect that separate this one from most other genre of games. While timing and execution require to be impeccable it cannot be achieved with RNG skewering the outcome. As I've mentioned above single entity tends to have high impact characteristics, meaning it is a burst amount of damage dealt in a very short amount of time on the receiving end which comes in after the hit roll then equals out in duration of time. Problem with it, is that the time to kill or to deal certain amount of damage can be the number which player can manage to calculate or it can be bloated ad nauseam, plus infinite. Although it may be extremely unlikely, it's likely enough to sabotage one's game plan entirely and has happened enough times in total war games.

    Lastly, this kind of mechanics can be double edge sword. You and me like it when the thing which "just work" works, and hate it when it doesn't. The point I was trying to make is not that I'm taking a dislike of it. I was merely pointing out the current model has its flaws when especially we were talking about the single entity unit, it wasn't a very ideal solution. OP has hardly done any detriment to make something that was not ideal worse.
  • TennisgolfbollTennisgolfboll Posts: 5,870Registered Users
    Also a dragon had WS6. And a basic empire swordsman had ws4.

    So in order for a swordsman to hit 33% it took someone like Archaon with ws9.

    Even ungrim ironfist or grimgor ironhide got hit by 50% of the attacks from swordsmen.

    I like the random part but as poc says many issues with animations. Also the minimum attack range is to small and the max is to big (minor tweaks would be nice)

    Read all my replies as if we are having a pint and a good old time. I will always read your reply like that.
Sign In or Register to comment.