B18 Feedback: Melee vs Ranged Balance.

[Tynan]

Thanks Granitecosmos for the analysis, it's interesting, very well thought-through, and you brought up some very good points.

It is true that some of the relationships that should've held got twisted by the new update. We'll be making some adjustments for version 1 to get things back to making sense (especially really basic stuff like: hitting people with a wood log should beat using fists!)

I think I'm going to try to make shield belts a lot more accessible.

Realism concerns aside, I want melee and ranged combat to be viable on both attack and defense. For example, I basically never see players go all melee, and it would be cool if that was at least something that a few people did.

[Vlad0mi3r]

I'm fine with it being hard to get into melee range, but being in melee range should be very, very bad for the person with a gun.

This is my point. Why is it so hard to understand?

It's not hard to understand I agree with you but how do you fix it? do you buff melee damage or nerf the damage done by ranged weapons in melee combat?

If like you suggest melee weapons get buffed. There are going to be a lot of one hit dead colonist or limbless colonists running about. I guess that would add realism, That's why people decided to run about in suits made out of metal (Plate Armour) saves you losing that leg. I can Imagine the emotional outcry though, "Not Fair everyone has peg legs".

[Scrabbling]

I can Imagine the emotional outcry though, "Not Fair everyone has peg legs".

FTFY: "Not fair! Everyone is blind".

(If my recent playthrough is in any way representative the likelihood of loosing an eye is now way higher than loosing a leg. Doesn't even matter if it's a scratching squirrel, a kicking elk or a gladius wielding raider.)

[Granitecosmos]

If like you suggest melee weapons get buffed.

Wow. Learn to read. Quote from the OP:

The solution doesn't lie in buffing melee; it lies in nerfing ranged melee attacks.

The reason I included that sentence is because I felt like buffing melee damage further would indeed just add too much damage to individual attacks.

But even if the devs end up buffing melee, there is one way to avoid adding more one-hit kills (which have dramatically decreased in B18 anyway, due to the new game mechanic for bodypart damage). Decrease the cooldown istead of increasing the damage. Better DPS while having the same damage per attack. Problem solved.

[patoka]

But even if the devs end up buffing melee, there is one way to avoid adding more one-hit kills (which have dramatically decreased in B18 anyway, due to the new game mechanic for bodypart damage). Decrease the cooldown istead of increasing the damage. Better DPS while having the same damage per attack. Problem solved.

i also thought about increasing attack speed of melee weapons, but consequently you'd also have to increase the attack speed of normal punches. that would make it far easier for any pawn with ranged or non-ranged weapons to stunlock their opponents if they have superiority in numbers.
furthermore you'd have to increase the attack speed of animals and nobody wants op zerg i mean squirrel rushes back
:/

[Granitecosmos]

i also thought about increasing attack speed of melee weapons, but consequently you'd also have to increase the attack speed of normal punches.

Why? Unarmed damage is fine. Melee weapons either need a buff or ranged weapons need a melee nerf. Fists and headbutts are fine as is. Please point out where in this thread did anyone ever mentioned fists need a buff.

[DubskiDude]

Thanks Granitecosmos for the analysis, it's interesting, very well thought-through, and you brought up some very good points.

It is true that some of the relationships that should've held got twisted by the new update. We'll be making some adjustments for version 1 to get things back to making sense (especially really basic stuff like: hitting people with a wood log should beat using fists!)

I think I'm going to try to make shield belts a lot more accessible.

Realism concerns aside, I want melee and ranged combat to be viable on both attack and defense. For example, I basically never see players go all melee, and it would be cool if that was at least something that a few people did.

I'd recommend making less effective, yet easier and quicker to produce alternatives to shield belts, like an actual iron shield made in a smithy, or a camouflage suit that temporarily makes a melee unit invisible to enemies that aren't mechanoids or animals (Tribal enemies may see through camouflage easier, possibly). Besides the price of crafting, shield belts are fine from what I've gathered, its just the part of the game prior to unlocking belts that has the issue, because melee has no support pre-shield belt.

Also I've always said traits that punish the player for not exclusively making a pawn a melee user (Brawler trait) are kind of heavy-handed. They should receive lots of melee benefit and not a huge mood debuff.

[patoka]

i also thought about increasing attack speed of melee weapons, but consequently you'd also have to increase the attack speed of normal punches.

Why? Unarmed damage is fine. Melee weapons either need a buff or ranged weapons need a melee nerf. Fists and headbutts are fine as is. Please point out where in this thread did anyone ever mentioned fists need a buff.

damn my first answer didnt get posted

if you buff one, you also debuff everything else. logical, right?

so melee weapons get a speed buff but fists dont? i am not a boxer but i can punch you many times every second. this gets poorly represented anyway, but that isnt the issue at hand. it's that in comparison to melee weapons fists become weaker. i didnt look up any numbers, but lets say fists make 1 dps, a randomly chosen melee weapon does 2 dps. ok, the weapon is twice as good as fists. now if we give it a 50% speed buff, it does 3 dps. now it is three times as good as fists. do you see the issue here?
also, i personally feel like the strength of animals vs melee fighters is at a good place right now. if you give melee weapons a speed buff, we have the same issue as before, except not with fists but with animals. this would make animals much weaker against melee fighters, which i doubt to be the right way to go.

and before you say it, yes indeed i did not bring up a way to fix this, i dont know either how to. i was just saying that there are issues if you change things like that.

lastly: nice strawman. gtfo

[Granitecosmos]

if you buff one, you also debuff everything else. logical, right?

Logical? Hardly.

First, even in the OP I've stated melee shouldn't get buffed but ranged melee should be nerfed. This is because melee becomes too burst-oriented if it gets even more damage per swing. But if the devs decide to go with buffing melee anyway, they should buff attack speed instead because it spreads the damage out more while achieving the DPS increase.

Second, this is not really the case. The point of damage is to decrease health. Health is unchanged. Therefore unarmed damage knocks out a pawn in X seconds. Just because melee gets buffed doesn't mean unarmed won't be able to do the knockout in X seconds. Therefore unarmed didn't get nerfed. The only change is melee being better at something it was better at in the first place anyway.

also, i personally feel like the strength of animals vs melee fighters is at a good place right now.

Which is why in the OP I've stated:

The solution doesn't lie in buffing melee; it lies in nerfing ranged melee attacks.

You should properly read the post first before jumping to conclusions.

lastly: nice strawman. gtfo

How about you contribute something to this thread that hasn't been brought up and discussed before for a change, instead of making yourself look like an idiot?

[patoka]

if you buff one, you also debuff everything else. logical, right?

Logical? Hardly.

First, even in the OP I've stated melee shouldn't get buffed but ranged melee should be nerfed. This is because melee becomes too burst-oriented if it gets even more damage per swing. But if the devs decide to go with buffing melee anyway, they should buff attack speed instead because it spreads the damage out more while achieving the DPS increase.

Second, this is not really the case. The point of damage is to decrease health. Health is unchanged. Therefore unarmed damage knocks out a pawn in X seconds. Just because melee gets buffed doesn't mean unarmed won't be able to do the knockout in X seconds. Therefore unarmed didn't get nerfed. The only change is melee being better at something it was better at in the first place anyway.

also, i personally feel like the strength of animals vs melee fighters is at a good place right now.

Which is why in the OP I've stated:

The solution doesn't lie in buffing melee; it lies in nerfing ranged melee attacks.

You should properly read the post first before jumping to conclusions.

lastly: nice strawman. gtfo

How about you contribute something to this thread that hasn't been brought up and discussed before for a change, instead of making yourself look like an idiot?

jesus christ i am seriously getting tired of you
your claims are ridiculous to a point where i feel like i am being trolled

go ahead, do your little mod and be happy about how you solved your problem and notice after hours of playing the new imbalances you've created for yourself

it is evident that you know everything already and are infallible, therefore we dont need to continue this joke of a discussion and we can close the thread

seriously does nobody else see the issue at hand and how he tries to distract from it

[Granitecosmos]

Fine, let me recap the problem for you.

A17:

• Melee weapons have on average 45% better DPS than ranged weapons or unarmed in melee.
• Ranged weapons have the same melee DPS as unarmed.

Melee works as a risk-reward playstyle. Using a melee weapon is viable.

B18:

• Melee weapons have on average 20% better DPS than ranged weapons in melee.
• Ranged weapons have better melee DPS than unarmed.

Melee doesn't work as a risk-reward playstyle because the reward is not enough to warrant the risk. Using a melee weapon is not viable because ranged weapons have almost the same melee DPS while having greater utility since they offer ranged attacks at the same time as well. Unarmed vs melee is unchanged.

My proposal: nerf the ranged weapons' melee attacks to make melee weapons a viable choice again.

People seem to reject the idea at first but soon several others reply in favor of the idea. Then Tynan pays a visit and agrees that melee needs a buff.

Someone brings up their concerns about melee one-hit kills if the devs decide to buff melee (which shouldn't be a concern for B18 anyway due to changed bodypart damage mechanics but whatever) instead of nerfing ranged weapons' melee attacks.

I propose they buff attack speed instead in that case to avoid that problem.

You jump in, demanding an unarmed attack speed buff because this would nerf unarmed (which is not the case; melee being even better relative to unarmed does not actually make unarmed weaker), even though I've stated several times already that I don't think buffing melee would be the best option in the first place.

You get called out on that and react with calling me a troll.

seriously does nobody else see the issue at hand and how he tries to distract from it

Would you mind describing this "issue"?

[patoka]

dont make it look like i said sth else
do not quote me on things i didnt say

[Granitecosmos]

dont make it look like i said sth else
do not quote me on things i didnt say

Don't worry, I'd never do that.







So let me ask the question again:

Would you mind describing this "issue"?

Answer this or go away. Your "issue" won't get solved if you don't tell me what it is in the first place and continuing an argument like this is pointless. Please don't make me involve a moderator in this.

[SpaceDorf]

@granite could you describe real quick how bodypart damage changed or link me to a Description of it?
This sounded like something I missed even when reading the changelog

[Granitecosmos]

@granite could you describe real quick how bodypart damage changed or link me to a Description of it?
This sounded like something I missed even when reading the changelog

The changelog didn't specifically mention it.

Basically all external bodyparts except the torso have to suffer twice as much damage to actually get removed. For example, a human eye has 10 hit points and the pump shotgun does 18 damage. Shooting an eye with that weapon removes it in A17, while in B18 it leaves it at 1 health. A finger has only 7 health, this gets shot off by the shotgun in one shot.

Internal parts like the spine, liver, bones and such are unchanged. Torso is also unchanged.

This means that low-damage sustained DPS weapons like the assault rifle will perform slightly better than high-damage burst weapons like sniper rifles compared to their A17 performance.