Unrealistic combat influences in the internal settings

[Tingyun]

Two internal settings entries stand out as worthy of reconsideration as to what the default setting should be:

1) a mod is enabled through one setting to make sure the player and officers always have at least 5 HP remaining after getting hit by ranged weapon (presumably, the first time they can only be reduced to 5, and can then be killed with another shot).

Do we want this on by default? Or set to 0 (disabled) by default? Should the default be different for different difficulty levels, or arcade/realistic/ironman settings?

2) luck effects armor coverage, by default set to .025, or 2.5% increased coverage per luck point.

This obviously goes to the long term project of turning luck into sneak rather than the magical influence it currently is, but in the meantime, do we want this effect to continue to be set so high?

The problem I see is this: armor for the player improves as the game goes on, as does the player luck skill. So this effect is contributing to a snowballing increase in the effectiveness of armor, which coupled with the player hp increasing, is magnifying the decreasing vulnerability of he player. Especially given that the luck skill is increasing armor coverage, and coverage already is pretty high for the highest tier armor, it seems to have a disproportionately high effect.

I would say this should be default set to a lower amount for now pending the larger rework.

 

[Pieter Boelen]

1) a mod is enabled through one setting to make sure the player and officers always have at least 5 HP remaining after getting hit by ranged weapon (presumably, the first time they can only be reduced to 5, and can then be killed with another shot).

Do we want this on by default? Or set to 0 (disabled) by default? Should the default be different for different difficulty levels, or arcade/realistic/ironman settings?

It is permanent so that you cannot be killed by being shot.
That is on purpose as sometimes guns can be so good that they're one-shot kills, which is a bit over-the-top.
This prevents it so that enemies will need to stab you at least a little bit before killing you.

I'm inclined to keep that as-is.

2) luck effects armor coverage, by default set to .025, or 2.5% increased coverage per luck point.

This obviously goes to the long term project of turning luck into sneak rather than the magical influence it currently is, but in the meantime, do we want this effect to continue to be set so high?

The problem I see is this: armor for the player improves as the game goes on, as does the player luck skill. So this effect is contributing to a snowballing increase in the effectiveness of armor, which coupled with the player hp increasing, is magnifying the decreasing vulnerability of he player. Especially given that the luck skill is increasing armor coverage, and coverage already is pretty high for the highest tier armor, it seems to have a disproportionately high effect.

I would say this should be default set to a lower amount for now pending the larger rework.

I'll leave that decision up to the people actually playing.
That's been in there for as long as I can remember.

 

[Tingyun]

Makes sense on the shooting one, I can just turn it off for myself, but I see why it is default.

On the armor and luck one, I'd propose we rebalance it based on the armor coverage achievable by a 10 luck player wearing golden armor, and what we think a reasonable coverage level should be, as well as a 5 luck player wearing battle armor. Seems like those would be the right test cases to examine the effects?

 

[Grey Roger]

Armour effectiveness has already been reduced to make it less effective against guns. Don't reduce it any further. Leave it as it is, please.

 

[Tingyun]

Grey Roger,

I'm fine either way, I've basically turned it off (set to .001) for my own game anyway, just wanted to bring this up for discussion to see if people think the default .025 number makes sense. If no one else advocates for a different default, I have no objection.

As a general matter, I would say however that if the complaint is armor is too weak against guns, that would counsel increasing its defense there, not leaving a higher luck influence.

After all, players are most vulnerable in the early game to being killed, so it is odd to have the counterbalance be something that increases over the late game, luck.

 

[Grey Roger]

The point was made that armour wasn't used at all in later periods because guns were becoming the primary weapon and armour didn't stop them, which is why you'll never see Hornblower or Sharpe wearing armour in their respective TV series. So we weakened armour against guns but left it alone against swords. It was I who implemented the weakening, after discussion; I haven't seen any complaints but will put it back the way it was if I do.

Combat is reasonably balanced as it is - if it weren't, it would undoubtedly have been dealt with during all the years PoTC and its mods have been going. You can, of course, customise the game to suit your own preferences by playing with "InternalSettings.h", and I already do, though in other ways - that's the whole point of that file. It would be wrong to impose our personal preferences on everyone else, so please leave the defaults as they are.

 

[Pieter Boelen]

@Grey Roger: I don't think Tingyun is saying that your making the armour weaker needs to be reverted.
Rather the opposite: Even with that change, he still seems to notice that armour is too notably strong, especially in the later game.

Did I get that right?

 

[Grey Roger]

And my point is that armour has already been weakened, it doesn't need to be weakened further. But as there's a setting in "InternalSettings.h" which allows him to alter the game to suit him, there's no problem. Likewise, I have my own preferences for "InternalSettings.h". Why not just leave the defaults as they are, then both @Tingyun and I can change them to suit our own preferences without affecting everyone else's game?

 

[ANSEL]

You can, of course, customise the game to suit your own preferences by playing with "InternalSettings.h", and I already do, though in other ways - that's the whole point of that file. It would be wrong to impose our personal preferences on everyone else, so please leave the defaults as they are.

I think you are absolute right in what you are saying here. Let people use InternalSettings to costomise the game as they like.
One of the greatest advantages in the game is the freedom to play it just as you want, please dont chance this, then POTC
will not be POTC no more, just a game like all the other ones.
There is a lot going on just now, but we must not forget to make, what we have, work in a proper way.

 

[Pieter Boelen]

No harm in him at least questioning things and suggesting things, is there?

It does seem to me that Luck playing such a substantial role in armour effectiveness does sound quite dodgy.
Why is Luck included in there at all? It's either the quality of the armour or your actual fighting skills.
No luck skill that you can increase at will to help you in fights exists in real life.
I never questioned it because I was hardly aware that setting existed.

Are we going to go through this process with every change being proposed?
Of course we should be cautious about what we change and not change everything willy nilly.
But just because stuff has remained unchanged for 10 years, it doesn't mean that the current state cannot be improved on.

Also, not everything that is different is actually worse.
From what I gather, game balancing is a bit.... weird at times. So I am not opposed to balancing issues being reconsidered.

If you guys are getting so worked up, then perhaps it is time for another discussion on the subject of "what is it that you actually want from the game"?
Do you want something easy and/or arcadey? Or should it be really difficult with more chances at failing than succeeding?

 

[Grey Roger]

Any change which falls under the category of "players are doing too well and having too much fun, let's spoil it for them" will certainly be challenged. As I recall, someone (possibly @Hylie Pistof) expressed reluctance to say what he enjoyed about the game because whenever he did, someone decided it was an exploit and tried to block it.

What we have now is a game which is not too easy / arcadey and not too difficult, with easily available options for anyone who finds it too hard or too easy. What I want from the game is basically that.

 

[ANSEL]

No harm in him at least questioning things and suggesting things, is there?

Absolutely not, thats just good with new ideas. But I tweak my own game to suit my own preference and so do @Grey Roger. Maybe we should
inform people more of these options?

No luck skill that you can increase at will to help you in fights exists in real life.

I think luck is playing an important role even in real life fighting, and I have no problem to connect luck to an armours behavior against shots and
cuts.

Also, not everything that is different is actually worse.

That I will never think.

 

[Pieter Boelen]

There is something very subjective about "having too much fun".
Clear exploits existing can be considered decidedly not fun for some people.
Especially if those exploits are either a bug or otherwise unintentional and don't actually make all that much sense.

Or in this case, what appears to be a progression to better items that become even better at being better as your skills increase.
In other words: From the start of the game, you're on your way to becoming Superman and so are your officers.
Could be fun. Or tremendously lame when you want the game to remain challenging all the way throughout.

Especially with a 1-10 skill range, that makes the game progression potentially quite quick.
Which is great when quick is what you want. Not so great when you actually want to take a while playing a single campaign.

This reminds me of people reloading when they get killed.
You don't actually have to do that in the game, since there is resurrection and you can continue play, just with a setback.
But some people don't want setbacks in their game. And then some others do.

 

[Pieter Boelen]

For the record, I reckon all approaches to the game are valid in their own way.
But as far as I gather, currently the game caters more to the "no setbacks" preferences than to those who do enjoy being presented with more difficulties.
I think @Grey Roger and @ANSEL are quite fine with a relatively linear progression through the game from "zero to Hero".
Player and officers all become better, no officers ever leave, officers don't get killed by accident, etc.
Nothing wrong with that. But that's only one approach.

Also, the whole reason why we talk about this is so that we can determine if the suggestions being posted are a "general feeling" or more tailored towards very specific players.
There is really no need for threats of "stop talking about this or I stop playing" nor is there a need for claiming "we want to spoil the game".
Those kind of posts just make me REALLY want to NOT continue modding anymore.
A simple "that is not something I would like/personally agree with" would suffice just fine.

 

[ANSEL]

Especially with a 1-10 skill range, that makes the game progression potentially quite quick

I think a 1- 100 skill range could be the solution.

 

[Pieter Boelen]

I think a 1- 100 skill range could be the solution.

I do think that might iron things out quite a bit.
At least then even with a reasonably fast progression, it would still take a while to become true Supermen.
Right now, if the progression is really slowed down, it'll probably quickly feel like there is no progression at all.

I'm just afraid that changing the skills to go up to 100 will not be a 5-minute fix.
It will require changes in a fair bit of spots and then all the game balancing may be seriously thrown out of whack too....

 

[ANSEL]

There is really no need for threats of "stop talking about this or I stop playing" nor is there a need for claiming "we want to spoil the game".
Those kind of posts just make me REALLY want to NOT continue modding anymore.
A simple "that is not something I would like/personally agree with" would suffice just fine.

I dont can follow you here ore quite understand you. We are all friends here, are we not?

 

[Grey Roger]

Probably me, getting upset at numerous proposals which would seriously threaten the way I like playing the game. But it's not a matter of trying to threaten, telling people to "stop talking about this or I stop playing". Rather, if I'm the only one who is so upset about this, then I get out of the way and let everyone else change the game the way they want.

 

[Pieter Boelen]

Let's just say that I've just been seeing some posts the last few days that I found quite disheartening.
And it isn't the first time.

I'd have hoped that after ten years, at least my good intentions were common knowledge.
And that you guys know by now that we all try very hard to help the game forwards and not in the other direction.

 

[Pieter Boelen]

Probably me, getting upset at numerous proposals which would seriously threaten the way I like playing the game. But it's not a matter of trying to threaten, telling people to "stop talking about this or I stop playing". Rather, if I'm the only one who is so upset about this, then I get out of the way and let everyone else change the game the way they want.

Which should not be necessary. One of the main things we've always tried is to make a game EVERYONE can like.

When have we ever tried to deliberately mess things up?
When have we ever completely ignored valid feedback without even seriously considering it?
When have we ever put stuff into the game without announcing it on the forum and talking about it for a bit first?
When have we ever, after finding out a change didn't work well, not tried to set it right again?
When have we ever, after finding out a change was not welcomed by all, not been willing to point towards a way of rectifying it and/or added a proper toggle?

I know I have always tried very, very hard to please everyone as much as possible.
Surely you must know that by now?