Rationale behind Weaknesses/Resistances to Damage Types?

NightStroke

Base Commander
Base Commander
Jul 26, 2016
135
231
43
#1
This is mostly a reaction to stuff I have been hearing come up in comments on threads around here. People repeatedly suggest the idea of a damage system similar to Warframe, where there are certain types of health and damage types that are better or worse against those health types.
(E.g. Fire, poison, and slash weapons are good against flesh health, but electricity, frost, and bludgeon damage is strong against armor)
What's the reasoning for this? The system isn't fun since it deters you from choosing certain items you might enjoy and it seems like a cheap way to make combat more thoughtful. I'm ok with the concept of health(normal hp), armor(regenerating hp), and shields(invincible until disabled somehow), but when resistances and weaknesses to damage types are introduced it becomes a major turnoff.

Why do people want damage types/resistances/weaknesses?
 

Sud Monkey

Base Commander
Base Commander
Jul 28, 2016
24
37
13
#2
I suppose it's another layer of balancing to prevent players from creating the perfect soldier. This way you'd have to decide whether to be average at resisting all damage types or tailor your setup to a particular resistance.

There may even be zones which favour a particular damage type which gives you an incentive to collect/craft a broad range of weapons and armours.

Without it would there be much to differentiate between a rocket launcher and a plasma cannon? They both deal damage and have a splash radius.

The trick is probably in choosing the right number of damage types so that it's fun rather than confusing or laborious.
 

Pandagnome

Kaiju Slayer
Fart Siege
Welcome Wagon
Happy Kaiju
Jul 27, 2016
7,745
10,083
113
Island of Tofu
#3
I guess in a tactical way certain weapons would have better attributes depending on the situation
some bosses might be immune for example against fire and something else is needed to counteract that.

Plus i think it would be boring to kill things the same way but given the choice have a good selection. For example a team changes how they approach an enemy but.... what if an enemy was resistant to all types but in pattern that cycles randomly you could perhaps have to time it right to use the specific weapon and co-ordinate so that this annoying enemy can be gone as opposed to pew pew gone in 5 seconds

Each weapon type has a purpose for example:

Fire would be great for burning and melting
Ice for freezing and slowing down
Acid for armor corrosion
Electric for frying and overloading tech
etc etc

I refer back to the lawgiver in judge dredd it has cool choices for the situations could encounter.
The modules on the weapon for example to install a certain number for your choice then you can switch to whatever that is needed.
 
Last edited:
Likes: NitroMidgets
#4
This is mostly a reaction to stuff I have been hearing come up in comments on threads around here. People repeatedly suggest the idea of a damage system similar to Warframe, where there are certain types of health and damage types that are better or worse against those health types.
(E.g. Fire, poison, and slash weapons are good against flesh health, but electricity, frost, and bludgeon damage is strong against armor)
What's the reasoning for this? The system isn't fun since it deters you from choosing certain items you might enjoy and it seems like a cheap way to make combat more thoughtful. I'm ok with the concept of health(normal hp), armor(regenerating hp), and shields(invincible until disabled somehow), but when resistances and weaknesses to damage types are introduced it becomes a major turnoff.

Why do people want damage types/resistances/weaknesses?
Why'd you put "regenerating HP" in brackets, after armor? Armors doesn't, at all, nor should it, function that way. Armor is a different type of layer of defense, besides shields (which should be the regenerating type), chitin...etc. and it makes sense why some weapons would be more effective against certain defenses than other. It encourages diversifying roles and equipment. It means, one either has to change things up a bit and can't just bash and blast away at everything with the same big weapon they got. Instead they'd have approach an enemy, not only differently in tactics, but with a different weapon. Or rely on others to help them take down the enemy by bringing something to the fight that is more effective against it than what a single player might have. It does not deter someone from choosing items they like, at all. They just have to fight differently and/or in concert with others. I will never go for bludgeoning weapons, like hammers. I'll stick with my blade and my long-range weapon and if I need something that can more easily punch through armor, I'll find a different approach or I'll simply take my time with the enemy.

My suggestion about such a diversification of weapon-effectiveness is meant exactly to prevent the issue of any one player becoming effective against absolutely everything, with any weapon, dealing the same effective damage to any type of enemy, with any type of defense, the same way. That is what's no fun. That is what's cheap. For it does not require any sort of effort from the player to make a certain build, gearing towards something more specific. One could just unload into any enemy, no matter their physiology or their gear with the same effectiveness.

It is also different from jack-of-all-trades, as those would be balanced builds that could deal with generally everything, but less effectively (or much less effectively) than those builds that might deal a type of damage that an enemy-type and its natural or artificial defenses may be more susceptible to.

If one wants to take down an enemy more effectively and spend less time on it, it only makes sense they should need a specific type of gear that will give them that edge.

If one brings their favorite bread-knife to take down an giant covered in metal-plates, they should have a more difficult time with it.
 

NitroMidgets

Tsi-Hu Hunter
Jul 27, 2016
590
474
63
Dupont, WA
#6
Another game in development covers that topic when it comes to fighting NPC's or other players as the difference in technology. If the NPC enemies use a certain tech then you build to exploit its weaknesses. Then when you have to fight another player the difference in performance you see is because you are using a weapon designed to fight tech A to instead fight tech B so the effectiveness will vary.
Even in Warframe your weapon isn't useless on certain enemies. It just isn't nearly as effective as a weapon designed for that enemy.
 

NightStroke

Base Commander
Base Commander
Jul 26, 2016
135
231
43
#7
Why'd you put "regenerating HP" in brackets, after armor? Armors doesn't, at all, nor should it, function that way. Armor is a different type of layer of defense, besides shields (which should be the regenerating type), chitin...etc. and it makes sense why some weapons would be more effective against certain defenses than other. It encourages diversifying roles and equipment. It means, one either has to change things up a bit and can't just bash and blast away at everything with the same big weapon they got. Instead they'd have approach an enemy, not only differently in tactics, but with a different weapon. Or rely on others to help them take down the enemy by bringing something to the fight that is more effective against it than what a single player might have. It does not deter someone from choosing items they like, at all. They just have to fight differently and/or in concert with others. I will never go for bludgeoning weapons, like hammers. I'll stick with my blade and my long-range weapon and if I need something that can more easily punch through armor, I'll find a different approach or I'll simply take my time with the enemy.

My suggestion about such a diversification of weapon-effectiveness is meant exactly to prevent the issue of any one player becoming effective against absolutely everything, with any weapon, dealing the same effective damage to any type of enemy, with any type of defense, the same way. That is what's no fun. That is what's cheap. For it does not require any sort of effort from the player to make a certain build, gearing towards something more specific. One could just unload into any enemy, no matter their physiology or their gear with the same effectiveness.

It is also different from jack-of-all-trades, as those would be balanced builds that could deal with generally everything, but less effectively (or much less effectively) than those builds that might deal a type of damage that an enemy-type and its natural or artificial defenses may be more susceptible to.

If one wants to take down an enemy more effectively and spend less time on it, it only makes sense they should need a specific type of gear that will give them that edge.

If one brings their favorite bread-knife to take down an giant covered in metal-plates, they should have a more difficult time with it.
Makes sense. I guess my issue with it comes from the fact that my favorite abilities and weapons(play style) have to get rotated out to be more effective against certain enemies. If we get a mod based system, hopefully there is a way to change damage type such that I can continue using play styles I enjoy while putting thought into my equipment.
 
Likes: MattHunX

Wyntyr

Omni Ace
Ark Liege
Jul 26, 2016
6,336
11,601
113
Florida
#8
I like choices and as such I would like to see differing damage types, but I would like to see either...one system that the damage type is better/worse in regards to defense types...or...one system where differing damage types have a lower base dps but has some sort of special effect. Not both systems, just one or the other.
 

Daynen

Active Member
Aug 3, 2016
184
246
43
#9
I do not endorse the idea of "elemental damage types." All they are are balancing mechanics that, as mentioned, prevent one weapon from being effective against all types of enemies. There are better ways to prevent mindless trigger holding. Different damage types in this context are really just ways to slow down or accelerate different fights. They don't change the way anyone plays or the way any enemy fights. They change nothing except the duration of a situation; this is, in fact, a design crutch. When the only reason you put something in the game is for "DPS control" you have failed as a designer and placed your game on a finite life cycle.

On the other hand, it's also been mentioned that different kinds of weapons could have different EFFECTS, both on targets and the environment. THIS is the direction the game needs to go, since incendiary rounds can set things on fire and do more than just "more damage to ice-types." This isn't Pokemon for F*%& sake. We don't have to reduce this game to damage per second contests. It can be so much more intelligent and dynamic than that. We don't have to worry about one person being effective against all enemy types because we're not pigeonholed into our choice when we start the game. It's one thing to feel ineffective in a locked-class system, because you're stuck with your choice unless you start a brand new character. We don't have that limitation here. Let the game's elements grow out of the DPS box, please; there is so much more room for physical function than just lifebar modifications.
 

Bl4ckhunter

Active Member
Jul 26, 2016
157
123
43
#10
Point is, the only choices it gives you are either A: switch gear, B: push throught with overwelming numbers, seems a bit pointless of a choice, if weapons are different and engaging i'll change if i want and keep one if i don't want to, right now it seems to me that the only point of elemental resistences in most games is to make players keep multiple gear sets, it's plain stupid imo i STILL don't see a reason to force change on people, don't get me wrong i like to change things around but if someone wants to stick to something why shouldn't they be able to?
 

NoahDVS

Deepscanner
Jul 27, 2016
182
133
43
#11
As long as it's not a bunch of somewhat arbitrary elemental crap and is decently realistic I wouldn't have any significant issues with it. Ember isn't a realistic game, but I don't want to feel like I'm playing an FPS Pokemon game.
 
Likes: Hybelkaninen

EvilKitten

Well-Known Member
Ark Liege
Jul 26, 2016
777
1,557
93
#12
I do not think that there should be ANY resistances or weaknesses to elemental damage. Rather I think that elemental effects (concussive, thermal, electrical) should have different effects on a players armor, hitpoints, and shield respectively. I also think that Elemental damages should play a large part as enviornmental hazards as well as changing the effects that a weapon can have. For instance a flame thrower could leave pools of burning fluids on the ground for a short time, stopping groups of melee enemies from getting too close. Or electrical type damages could interupt, stun or otherwise incapacitate while explosive could be used to push enemies around. I have actually been planning a more in depth topic about health shields and armor and how elemental damages interact with these, I will try to have it up tomorrow.
 
#13
As long as it's not a bunch of somewhat arbitrary elemental crap and is decently realistic I wouldn't have any significant issues with it. Ember isn't a realistic game, but I don't want to feel like I'm playing an FPS Pokemon game.
Well, personally I was not particularly talking about elemental enemies being weak against other elements (something which FF did have for a while, if I recall, then it got removed, so I had no problem mowing down e.g.: raspers that were spewing lightning at me, with weapons of the Voltaic-variety and such. When before, they would do less damage against them. That was also annoying).

It would still be a good system if some type of damage, be it elemental or just slashing vs. bludgeoning, would be more effective against certain type of enemies and any layer of additional defense they might have.

Or certain elements, used either excessively or in combination with others, could effect enemies differently and even disrupt their attacks. For example, cryogenic weapons could compound their effect, on larger enemies, slowing their movement a bit. Toxic weapons could, after a good barrage, infect a large enemy, making it sick, reducing their cone of vision, or make them stop in their attacks to throw up or just steady their spinning heads. Incendiary weapons could eventually ignite part of a large creatures body, or the built up heat could impair their vision, or just cause some effects that would make sense given the element.
 

NoahDVS

Deepscanner
Jul 27, 2016
182
133
43
#14
Well, personally I was not particularly talking about elemental enemies being weak against other elements (something which FF did have for a while, if I recall, then it got removed, so I had no problem mowing down e.g.: raspers that were spewing lightning at me, with weapons of the Voltaic-variety and such. When before, they would do less damage against them. That was also annoying).

It would still be a good system if some type of damage, be it elemental or just slashing vs. bludgeoning, would be more effective against certain type of enemies and any layer of additional defense they might have.

Or certain elements, used either excessively or in combination with others, could effect enemies differently and even disrupt their attacks. For example, cryogenic weapons could compound their effect, on larger enemies, slowing their movement a bit. Toxic weapons could, after a good barrage, infect a large enemy, making it sick, reducing their cone of vision, or make them stop in their attacks to throw up or just steady their spinning heads. Incendiary weapons could eventually ignite part of a large creatures body, or the built up heat could impair their vision, or just cause some effects that would make sense given the element.
My post wasn't directed at you. I only read the OP and skimmed the rest.

I'm really not in love with that idea though. Lots of things can make sense, but won't always make sense. What is toxic damage? Why does it reduce vision in particular when toxins can also paralyze? Not all toxins are delivered the same way either and some things are simply immune to certain kinds of toxins, but not all toxins. Why does heat impair vision when it can also hurt electronics while leaving vision intact?
 
Last edited:
#15
My post wasn't directed at you. I only read the OP and skimmed the rest.

I'm really not in love with that idea though. Lots of things can make sense, but won't always make sense. What is toxic damage? Why does it reduce vision in particular when toxins can also paralyze? Not all toxins are delivered the same way either and some things are simply immune to certain kinds of toxins, but not all toxins. Why does heat impair vision when it can also hurt electronics while leaving vision intact?
Well, haze and whatever. Just make it so that being exposed to different type of elements and the built up from them could affect not just enemies, but also us, in different, debilitating ways.
 

Beemann

Active Member
Jul 29, 2016
143
53
28
#16
My post wasn't directed at you. I only read the OP and skimmed the rest.

I'm really not in love with that idea though. Lots of things can make sense, but won't always make sense. What is toxic damage? Why does it reduce vision in particular when toxins can also paralyze? Not all toxins are delivered the same way either and some things are simply immune to certain kinds of toxins, but not all toxins. Why does heat impair vision when it can also hurt electronics while leaving vision intact?
Because toxic and heat are shorthands for debilitations and not real world simulations of what toxins and heat do? It was just an example. Keep it simple. Not everything mentioned has to be developed to the extent of its real world counterpart. We'd be waiting for another century for Ember to finish were that the case
 

NoahDVS

Deepscanner
Jul 27, 2016
182
133
43
#17
Because toxic and heat are shorthands for debilitations and not real world simulations of what toxins and heat do? It was just an example. Keep it simple. Not everything mentioned has to be developed to the extent of its real world counterpart. We'd be waiting for another century for Ember to finish were that the case
I wouldn't blame a developer for taking shortcuts in that are. Toxic damage really is ambiguous though. Some thing that can be done is to stick to 1-2 types of toxins and base toxic weapons on those. That creates limitations and effects that aren't arbitrary and adds a good bit of depth to the damage type. My main gripe is really about resistances and weaknesses though. If you want a balanced damage type system, it'll take a good bit of planning to avoid making decisions that are arbitrary.
 

EvilKitten

Well-Known Member
Ark Liege
Jul 26, 2016
777
1,557
93
#18
Toxic/Acid Damage is a joke. I mean you are wearing a frame specifically to protect you against that sort of environment (it also helps protect you against weaponsfire too obviously). I fail to see how a frame designed to protect against something should then be susceptible to that damage when fired from a gun. Saying that the toxins/acids are "Weaponized" doesn't exactly work out that way. Rather for the effect you are looking for I have made the suggestion of using Nanites or Nanobots. They would easily be able to replicate the same general effects while working at a combat speed and without the frame automatically having a naturally designed protection against them.
 
Likes: MattHunX
Jul 27, 2016
22
25
13
29
US
#19
A game I played that had an extremely good damage type system was Spiral Knights.

Spiral Knights had 6 monster types and 3 damage types. Each of the damage types was strong against 2 monster types, neutral against 2, and resisted by 2. This allowed there to be good weapon type variety while also enabling developers to create challenging and varied scenarios and require players to be thoughtful and bring different gear for different roles and different levels.

There was also an option to use weapons which did normal damage that was neutral to all enemies, but these weapons weren't as powerful because they lacked the super effective damage multiplier. It was far more effective to bring a good mix of weapony with a variety of damage types.

In addition to damage types there were also status effect types (cryo, shocking, fire, stunning, toxic) that weapons could have which weren't critical but added even more thought to the system.
 
Likes: MattHunX

Beemann

Active Member
Jul 29, 2016
143
53
28
#20
I wouldn't blame a developer for taking shortcuts in that are. Toxic damage really is ambiguous though. Some thing that can be done is to stick to 1-2 types of toxins and base toxic weapons on those. That creates limitations and effects that aren't arbitrary and adds a good bit of depth to the damage type. My main gripe is really about resistances and weaknesses though. If you want a balanced damage type system, it'll take a good bit of planning to avoid making decisions that are arbitrary.
Toxic damage isn't ambiguous if it's explained to the user, just like Poison in a JRPG tends to mean a slow damage tick, even though there are many varieties of actual poison. Keep it simple and just pick one effect
I'm not a fan of a resistances/weaknesses system either, but debilitations and elemental damage are not necessarily the same as a Pokemon-tier element system

@EvilKitten
"We found a new strange organic substance that eats through the Omniframe at an alarming rate." is no more or less ridiculous than shapeshifting, teleporting space aliens or having the pilot completely exposed while fighting. Plus it was just people shotgunning ideas out. It doesn't have to explicitly be called acid/toxin
 
Likes: MattHunX