|
Post by Soul Samurai on Jul 15, 2019 11:14:30 GMT
I think it would be something that changed if it actually mattered. The low end of weapon power is 10 for the most part, which makes anything ARM 14 or below more or less irrelevant. If the low-end weapon power was 8-9 (particularly on ranged weapons) then the bell curve of probabilities would make the difference between 13-16 matter a lot more. But since there is so little difference in survivability at the low end of the scale anyway, I doubt it's something PP cares to change. It matters for blast damage and ARM buffs (of which Khador now has access to a few).
|
|
|
Post by hocestbellum on Jul 15, 2019 11:39:16 GMT
I think it would be something that changed if it actually mattered. The low end of weapon power is 10 for the most part, which makes anything ARM 14 or below more or less irrelevant. If the low-end weapon power was 8-9 (particularly on ranged weapons) then the bell curve of probabilities would make the difference between 13-16 matter a lot more. But since there is so little difference in survivability at the low end of the scale anyway, I doubt it's something PP cares to change. It matters for blast damage and ARM buffs (of which Khador now has access to a few). Buffs don't really matter in the overall scheme of things; only in the specifics. We could buff ARM, but other people can also debuff ARM or buff damage. And are you really going to put Iron Flesh on an ARM 14 unit? They would still die 60% of the time to the weakest shooting in the game. Blast damage kind of proves my point: it's in the range of 6-8 for the most part. For ARM 12-14 when you need a 3-5+ to kill something, the difference between 3+ and 5+ is pretty small. It's something like 95% and 85%. But if you need 6+ or 8+, that's 72% and 42%. Huge swings from small changes. It's academic, though; mass POW changes are not likely to happen with the current incremental updates system, so I doubt we'll see sensible low-end ARM values any time soon
|
|
|
Post by Soul Samurai on Jul 15, 2019 13:11:21 GMT
Buffs don't really matter in the overall scheme of things; only in the specifics. The devil is in the details. We could buff ARM, but other people can also debuff ARM or buff damage. And are you really going to put Iron Flesh on an ARM 14 unit? They would still die 60% of the time to the weakest shooting in the game. I didn't specifically say Iron Flesh; yes it's our biggest infantry ARM buff but not our only one. An ARM buff on an ARM 14 unit would reduce casualties to some degree against POW 10 shooting, but also to blast damage and to other AOEs that work like blast damage but aren't blast damage. Plus sometimes you want to run to engage a shooty unit; such units often have P+S values in melee that are lower than 10. Uncommon situations? Yes, but still situations that can occur, at least in casual play. Plus the original discussion of strange armour values was not limited to ARM 14; one of my points was that MOW's base ARM of 16 feels low when compared to some other models. Blast damage kind of proves my point: it's in the range of 6-8 for the most part. For ARM 12-14 when you need a 3-5+ to kill something, the difference between 3+ and 5+ is pretty small. It's something like 95% and 85%. But if you need 6+ or 8+, that's 72% and 42%. Huge swings from small changes. I don't understand how "huge swings from small changes" is your point, when you originally said: I think it would be something that changed if it actually mattered. Now your comment does seem to relate to specific examples where the differences are not very significant, but: a)No-one said it DID matter. b)Armour values aren't exclusively in the range of 11 to 14 c)Even in the range from 11 to 14 it DOES make a difference at times. For example, a 5-box solo at ARM 14 is far more survive-able than if it was at ARM 11 (and yes, my original comment did talk about solos). For another example, POW 7 blast damage needs 5s to kill my ARM 11 Nyss Hunters, but would need 8s if they were ARM 14, which is a significant difference. It's academic, though; mass POW changes are not likely to happen with the current incremental updates system, so I doubt we'll see sensible low-end ARM values any time soon No-one asked for changes to armour values, it was just an observation. I'm not sure why you started talking about PP changing stuff. Ultimately my comment was more about "game stats matching fluff/aesthetics" than anything else. I fully understand that the driving factor for game stats is game balance, which is why I never actually complained about the strange armour values, I only mentioned that they were there.
|
|
|
Post by hocestbellum on Jul 15, 2019 13:31:54 GMT
Ah, you're right, my bad. I saw the 'ARM don't make sense' bit and assumed it was a call for change, prompting me to wander off into my own little debate about probability curves. And I also incorrectly assumed you were talking about SWI.
Sorry! Given that my RL job involves reading technical documents, you think I'd be better at picking up details...
|
|
|
Post by wasted79 on Aug 24, 2019 1:30:45 GMT
I dont think a guy with a massive beer belly hanging out of his way-to-tiny-not-warcaster-armour is going to have a high arm stat. But that's justwee. Don't underestimate "female fantasy armor" lol And Butcher wouldn't been the first male to wear it, Conan the Barbarian did
|
|
sorokin
Junior Strategist
Posts: 775
|
Post by sorokin on Aug 24, 2019 16:46:46 GMT
I dont think a guy with a massive beer belly hanging out of his way-to-tiny-not-warcaster-armour is going to have a high arm stat. But that's justwee. Don't underestimate "female fantasy armor" lol And Butcher wouldn't been the first male to wear it, Conan the Barbarian did In all fainess, PP has consistenly avoided that trope so far. Yes, there's the odd boob window or boob chest plate, but no bikini armour so far.
|
|