Weapon and Equipment Properties could use a revision

The way damage reduction properties are done is unevenly spread out and far too low. Something they could try to possibly break the meta

First, make the value actually good. At least 20-25%.
Second, redo the division of power to not be racially based, but enemy or situationally based. 25% dr vs unarmored, 25% dr vs armor, 25% dr vs projectiles and DoTs (needs more here).
Thirdly, and most importantly, make it not rollable with +HP.

Now there’s choice. Well, maybe. Can’t declare my numbers are correct, but the idea is you can have impactful niche damage reduction (maybe good for your IB) or take HP (obviously better if your build has no innate dr).

I think you actually mixed those things around, because, if character has innate Damage Reduction, they don’t really have much use for any more damage reduction on top of it, since damage ressistances are multiplicative and not additive. Instead of 20-25% resistance, your Orinbreaker will only get like… 16-18%? I am terrible at math, but the point still stands.
Ironbreaker benefits from having even more health way more than he does from additional Damage resistance.

More health and damage reduction are from a mathematical standpoint literally the same stat. If we calculate the “effective health” we have to multiply with the reduced damage in one case and with the more health in the second case:

  • Case A - Normal Ironbreaker: 150 / 0.7 = 214.29
  • Case B - Ironbreaker with 20 % Health: 150 * 1.2 / 0.7 = 257.14
  • Case C - Ironbreaker with 20 % DR: = 150 / (0.7 * 0.8) =267.86

So as we can see 20 % more damage reduction is actually benefitial for Ironbreaker. The reason here is that health scales linear while damage reduction scales exponential and “same values” therefore don’t result in same benefit. The fitting damage reduction for 20 % more health would be 1/1.2 = 0.833, so about 16.67 % damage reduction. If you have the choice between 50 % damage reduction or 50 % more health always take the DR. But if you compare really equal values like 50 % more health to (100 - (100/150)*100) damage reduction, it makes no difference at all.

So in short: 20 % DR over 20 % more health on any character. There might be situations with rounding on low damage where it might reverse. But these are artifacts then. An example could be that a gunner bullet always does at least one damage and a further reduction for values below is therefore pointless and more health would be better. But I am not sure if the game is even programmed like this or if it “remembers” chip damage values until they reach integers.

So, in a way, a more balanced number would be 15% DR…
Since that way we get:
150 / (0.7 * 0.85) ≈ 252.1
Which is an optimal result, when we factor in that the Damage Resistance would be active even when the player is downed.

Damage reduction complements healing more than increased maximum health, which is more useful when you are bouncing from High to Low often.

I will advocate for Push&Block angle, which allows for circular pushes.

Only if you want an equal replacement. Then again, there is no point in replacing 20 % health with 16.67 % DR because it does the same. Personally, I would advocate to simply remove the health altogether and increase the damage reduction values but make them specialized depending on the “threat factor” of the source. Something like Damage reduction versus Skaven + 20 %, Damage reduction versus Norsca + 15 %, Damage reduction versus Beastmen + 30 %, Damage reduction versus AoE + 50 %, Damage reduction versus Disablers + 25 % (numbers are just example numbers). So people can decide what causes them the largest headaches and can counter versus that while stilll being completely “vulnerable” against other threats. Numbers have to adjust accordingly but you have to consider how useful they are. Sure 50 % DR against AoE is powerful, but how many sources of AoE are there and how often do you die due to them?

Same theme again, give more and better/more effective specialization while sacrificing the generalist properties.

the thing about the dmg reduction math we run in multiple problems,
such as
*diminishing returns
*nieche aplications
*hard to grasp usefulness

i would advocate a more clear approach such as:
**every atack against you deals 2 less dmg
(very useful for burning dmg; somewhat useful for hordes; quiet useless against heavy hitters)
**every 2.5s the next atack against you does 6 less dmg
(flame/dot 2/5 usefullness, horde/ambient 4/5 usefullness, heavy hitters 2/5 usefullness)
** every 10s the next atack against you does 15 less dmg
(flame/dot 1/5; horde ambient 3/5 ;Heavy hitter 5/5)

a system like this is probably the best because its impossible to misinterpretend, it doesnt interact with any other system like thp generation or already existing dmg reduction, and it always does something, its nieche but not obsolete if its primary function isnt met.

ofc numbers and efficiency are not meant to be abbsolute i was just coming up with reference numbers so you could follow what i mean

1 Like

Well then no one would take anything besides dr vs disablers because that’s the only one that applies to all maps and readily understood, vs taking a racially based dr which will always be a coin flip.

Could you elaborate a little bit?
Push/Block Angle is made to be 30% for a reason - it can be rolled on both Necklace and melee weapons, allowing you to have +60% bonus in total.
Also, I am not sure if Circular pushes are that useful in the current environment. Especially since our main concern is to never get surrounded in the first place (which is mostly done by positioning, rather than pushing).
But I might be missing something.

You already mentioned that.
I am against removing health increase stat, because it is on the same level of risk as trying to change talents on a Witch Hunter. People will just crucify you, even if your suggestion is good.
And “threat factor” is a very subjective thing. There is no way to objectively measure it and turn into adequate numbers.
Add on top of that the fact that even 50% damage reduction vs AOE would still lead to the property not being used, because there are much more important things in play, and you will end up with a net loss due to addition of new “dead” stats into the pool.
Chances are, people wil ljust reach a new concesus of “Stamina + Block Cost Reduction is META” and roll with it instead of trying to specialize anything.

Generalist options are popular for a reason - they are always justifiable to bring.
For example - Damage Reduction vs Disablers can easily be labeled as useless, because disablers themself don’t always do that much damage. Usually it’s other enemies that deliver the punishment.
Damage Reduction vs AOE is not that useful, since people would try to avoid AOE effects anyway and tend to be hit by them so rarely. Which leads to Heroic Intervention case, where the effect might be cool, but it’s not worth bringing due to rarity of it’s occurence.
Damage Reduction vs Beastmen is a straight up “dead on arrival” stat, because they appear only on a handful of Campaign maps and some people don’t even have access to them. And locking an item property behidn a paywall is unjustifyable.
Damage Reduction vs Monsters/Lords still relies on a random event to occur, so it would primarily be used in Twitch/Weave/Deed missions.
That leads to only 2 options for the average player. Damage Reduction vs Skaven, Damage Reduction vs Chaos.

This suggestion has multiple problems.

  1. Poor scaling with difficulty. Taking 2 less damage on Cata is just laughable, because even a single hit can chunk you for around 20-30 hp at once. And creating separate damage reduction profile for each difficulty is not worth the time and effort.
  2. These sound more like talents or traits, rather than item properties, which are just simple numerical stat changes.
  3. A system that doesn’t interact with any other system leads to more hollow and barebones gameplay. There is a reason why people look for synergy and optimisation - it is enjoyable.

while yes an absolute value dmg reduction is vastly more worth on the lowest diffculties

an argument could be made that %dmg reduction is of less value in low difficulties also.
if an enemy does a third of the dmg you would need 3 times as many hits to absorb the same amount of dmg,hence getting only a third of its potenial value
%HP increase circumvents this already because HP of heroes is always the same no matter the difficulty

as i said the values are just to give you a grasp, not actual values and what do you think 10% dmg reduction of a 20dmg hit is? its 2

whats the problem with that?

Absolute numbers like “2 less damage” have a huge issue though. They don’t scale well within the same difficulty but different sources (superpowerful against DoT, useless against a CW overhead) and they scale even more poorly within different difficulties (superstrong on low difficulty, useless on high difficulties).

A DR stat that would effectively being helfpul against Assassins and Leeches only (and just in case they got you) versus something which helps you potentially the whole map? I think that depends on the player. If you have issues with getting caught take it. If you have more issues with horde enemies take something else. Versus disablers doesn’t seem like a sure pick for me. Which is the whole point of a rework. To make options have advantages and disadvantages (mainly in the form of skipping something else you would like).

And this is the complete issue of the whole properties and traits we have right now. Either we let it like it is or we do a change which makes it better and more interesting. Generalist options have to go, even if it is temporarily unpopular. Alternatively, you can let them be but nerf them to being useless. But playing around the field of making other properties “competitive” with the generalist stuff will end up in poor balance.

The problem is that your suggestion would result in this property actually losing value with difficulty increase, instead of becoming more important and lucrative. I can’t immagine anyone who would use this stat after advancing from the lowest difficulties, because the value provided by the stat would just vanish over time.

But not every attack does just 20 damage. Some may deal 60, or even whole 120. Percentage damage recuction provides infinitely more value that any set number reduction would.

This thread focuses on Equipment Properties. Not Traits or Talents.
And trying to shove an entire talent worth of code and new mechanics into something that needs to just change baseline stats of the character is not worth it.

No, I don’t think that’s the issue.
If you make everything super situational, people will just choose the most universally useful ones and use them forever.
Nerfing or removing generalist options just because they are popular is not a wise move.
In my opinion, the better way to do it is to add more generally useful options. Not “this is only useful in that specific occasion and nowhere else”, but instead “this is useful in this spectrum of situations, but doesn’t help in others”.
Keep in mind, I am not against specialisation in on itself, I just don’t think it is a good idea of trying to make everything a huge hit-or-miss investment.

As an analogy - why do you think poor cleave weapons like Crowbill or 1h Axe are so rarely used despite having good damage potential? Because they are too niche and specialised. You can’t rely on them unless you have other weapons/people covering their weakness.
Meanwhile, more generally capable weapons are seeing some use in one way or another.
So, currently, the most common request for these weapons to make them viable is to increase their cleaving power. Not nerfing all other options or deleting versatile weapons from the game.

1 Like

yes and you would take full dmg of a chaos worrior hit, if you had %dmg reduction against aoe,
the “2 less dmg” example is specificly meant to be an stand in for AOE dmg reduction as it is currently, no one takes it, my suggestion was that we had a stat (in my case more of a trait) that would fullfill the same role as anti AOE while still retaining SOME (not amazing) value against other enemys. and i still think it accomplishes that.

but i made 3 suggestions one for chip dmg, one for occacional ambient/horde enemy hit and one for heavy hitters

as i just mentioned thats the point, 2dmg reduction would be useless against CW, but so is dmg against AOE or skaven or disablers,
so it would be highly effective against chip dmg, somewhat okay vs hordetype enemy’s and a nonefactor against heavy hitters, BUT it does alteast do something, always unlike the current dmg reduction choices we have…
same with the 2 other suggestions i made, the idea is to have 1 area where they can shine the most but not be entirely useless in all other scenarios

and the basis i used is, one for chip dmg, one for heavy hitters, and one for hordetype enemy’s

Now I see what you were going for.
Sadly, there are still issues with it. Main one being - we don’t really have many sources of Damage over Time sources that are encountered often enough to justify bringing this effect. Other one - the sources we DO have tend to scale really strongly with difficulty, so to make it viable in Legend/Cata, you would have to make the numbers ridiculously overpowered in lower difficulties.
General damage reduction (not against AoE specifically) is actually easier for everyone to work with. Just because it is mechanically simplier.


Now that I think about it, the most common source of damage over time effects is actually friendly fire from the Elf and Sienna xD

I figure by DoT he means aoe DoT ie warpfire, bile and poison gas as each tick would have the 2 DR applied to it, but you’re right, those ticks scale quite hard with difficulty. It could get OP when combined with Barkskin too.

As far as necklace properties go, the simplest imo would be keep HP, ditch the different DRs but add stagger power and dodge distance as properties as has been suggested above (maybe just 10% dodge distance? 20% seems very, very strong).

1 Like

For a balance it would be a wise move. People will only chose generalist as long as they are available. Imagine a property pool where none of these exist. People would have to consider what they want and struggle with and we would see broader applications. Otherwise it would be more health all the time.
It can be discussed if changing race based traits to enemy types so they say application each map. That is point worth discussing. The principle stays the same though. I don’t see any benefit for keeping or having more generalist stuff.

And this here is specialization and what I am looking for. This is useful in several situations. However, health (to keep the example) is usefull in ALL situations. That is bad from balance perspective.

Because Fatshark botched up the weapon balance? 1H Axe and Crowbill are good weapons and I just recently tested them extensively on Legend and Cataclysm. They do their job well and are useful. However, Fatshark made a weapon balance where you had outliers and overly powerful weapons like Sword and Dagger or Axe and Falchion etc. And instead of chosing to simply nerfing the 10 % outliers, they decided to buff 80 % of the weapon pool to feeling more similar to each other and being too good in to many situations. Therefore, your analogy is not a good one because it actually shows the problem of to much versatility, especially if you consider the co-op aspect. But it is another topic, so I won’t discuss weapon balance analogies further.

Well this already brings massive dejavus here. Its really hard to truly balance dr/health and even just changing them to work differently brings out a lot of problems.

Can see problems with this. First of all can you roll health and say dodge at the same time or would they be slot restricted. (Aka you can only roll health or dodge or stagger)
Dodge could probably compete with health on some careers, stagger power I’m not too sure.

I feel like our entire dialogue can be summed up by a single sentence:
“One wants to nerf everything until it feels balanced, while the other wants to buff things for the same reason”.
I am gainst harsh nerfs.
Taking power and features away is always a major shakedown and needs to be reserved for the emergency situations, like Javelin and alike. And even then, I think they need to be done in moderation.

Nobody likes coming back to the game and suddenly finding out that their favorite build is now effectively deleted from the game and they have to rethink and relearn a bunch of things. You can’t just pull an Igor from Young Frankenstein and say “Well, they are wrong!”

Instead, giving people other options would go a much longer way. Even if those options do not change things as drastically as you want.
(I have my own examples of this, though on the opposite end of the spectrum.)

A stat that has guaranteed use in all maps during QP > a stat that’s only useful 1/3 of the time depending how the maps roll.

Like, I am in agreement that any DR property needs to have division to keep one from overpowering the other, but racially based dr stats doesn’t seem good just sounds too strict/at the mercy of RNG. 2 out of 3 encounters you will have a useless stat.

2 Likes