The 1DN resolution system really has to go

I've been reading quite a bit on the forums about just how boring the magic and combat systems are in this game.  And, sadly, I have to agree with most of them.

I couldn't really put my finger on why until the realization hit me (and many others, I'm sure) that the element that these two boring and flavorless systems share is the 1DN resolution system. 

That one design choice means that all attacks and all defenses look precisely the same save for their scalar value.  While this choice may have had quite a bit of value to an AI coder, it means that all spells and weapons lack any sort of character.  You can't fix it by fiddling with the distribution of the underlying random variable.  Lack of variety in describing the efficacy of a particular attack or defense makes combat and magic feel like an afterthought.  Focusing on the addition of "unit special abilities" of the 1DN variety and adding more spells of the 1DN variety will fix nothing, and ultimately detracts from the unavoidable conclusion: pure 1DN is unfixable and must go.

MoM was wildly fun with the simple additions of two metrics that were separate from the attack/defense roll.  These were spell resistance and damage rating.  You had 5 basic numbers for each unit for combat (Attack, Defense, Damage, Health, Spell resistance) rather than 3 (attack, defense, health).  This allowed for fairly nice variation of initial stage units ("flavor") without having to introduce any "specials," (even though MoM did this in spades).  It also allowed for a wider variety of meaningful combat buffs that made each spellbook feel like it had flavor.

Combat needs a few more numbers to describe it.  At least add a separate damage rating, for Pete's sake.  How about it, Brad?  I really want to like this game more.

5,791 views 6 replies
Reply #1 Top

Personally I don't feel the problem of combat is the lack of numbers. I think combat needs more predictability, mostly achieved by 1DN going away and better balance. Add to this a better AI and some active and passive abilities that make the combat more than just waiting for the enemy to end their movement next to you and then beating them up.

MoM didn't actually have separate attack and damage numbers. It had an attacks that had a base 30% chance of hitting. Just because that 30% base could be affected by things such as the ability Luck doesn't mean that it's really a separate stat.

Reply #2 Top

Hm.  Yeah... you're right about MoM.  My recollection was faulty.  That said, the MoM system is still effectively a *separate* hit% and damage system.  So, I'm not sure that my point is made moot.  I would guess there is still more going on "behind the scenes" of a MoM combat than there is in an E:WoM combat.  I agree about your point about combat being a contest between units to see which one ends movement next to each other first so that it could be one-shotted.  That's just... annoying.

Reply #3 Top

I'm not sure if it's a 1DN issue as much as a need to separate the TO HIT and DAMAGE.

Reply #4 Top

IMO, 1DN is fine now that you got the min max damage system in. It's pretty easy to use to mimic higher dice rolls. I don't know why we are still talking about it.

Reply #5 Top

.

Reply #6 Top

True.  And just doing what you suggested would add quite a bit to the game, especially if the other side gets a %defense and damage mitigated rating.  There's quite a lot of potential variety there just in those factors.  I seem to remember that MoM made attack and defense simultaneous as well.  While this allowed units to kill each other, it did not have a "one shotting" problem.

Overall, I was using the term "1DN" as a catch-all word for the contest between 1 number and 1 number, which makes for some pretty wild results in tac-combat, and lends to an atmosphere of bland uniformity.  I am enjoying other parts of the game, which makes the "1DN" combat so... disappointing.