Thread 717179052

Why dont more games do the DND route of low numbers?
Basically any combat game nowadays your damage starts from 10s, and then exponentially ramps up.
Whats wrong with just having damage between 0-100, or something like that. I really dont get it

>>717179052 (OP)
people prefer the dope hit of 9999 damage over a well balanced experience
I blame japs

>>717179139
To me it just feels natural that your very first hit in a game wouldnt be a simple one (1) or a miss. Starting a game and seeing me hit a 50 or 150 instantly turns me off. Its not like im not gonna play the game but it just feels off

>>717179052 (OP)
Because when numbers are that low you have to do real gay shit for DoTs like making them only tick every 6 seconds or whatever
It looks cooler when you've got a DoT on you and your HP ticks down multiple times a second

>>717179052 (OP)
100 is too high. Paper Mario maxes out at like. 4.

there is literally no difference between doing 10 damage to an enemy with 100 hp and 1000 damage to an enemy with 10000 hp besides the visual feedback, the reason devs would keep damage low is because people genuinely do not like seeing numbers going to high. you can look at diablo 3/4 as an example of people being annoyed at the ridiculous numbers, and the reason why poe1 hides it

>>717179648
>there is literally no difference
>except this massive difference

Higher numbers allow you to have variance with lesser impact on outcome and vice versa. Both have their place.

>>717179052 (OP)
Calculations, especially when you have 100 passives/bonuses/talents/buffs that each increase your damage by x%, it's easier when you let that shit scale into millions.
Personally I like the in-between where dipping into those 5digit damage numbers is still an achievement. The calculations still have a room to breathe, and you can still see the difference at glance, something that is kinda lost when you go from millions to billions to trillions, and your eyes start to glaze over at the sight of all the zeros.
Very low numbers are fun, but you really have to build your game balance around them, and people like their 10% increased damage on everything.

>>717179762
well i was mostly talking about a balance perspective

>>717179648
>enemy has 100 hp
>hit between 1-10 if I don't miss
>10% to hit really any number, meaning more higher hits and faster time to kill
>other games, enemy has 10000 hp
>can hit between 1-1000 if i dont miss
>.1% to hit any number, routes rng lower so longer time to kill

Shut the hell up

>>717179909
Why cant you just have threshold?
In OP game (OSRS), you can get damage bonuses (increases) but you need a sufficient amount to get a new max hit, so not just 1 gear piece upgrade is enough on its own to get you a max hit (often) but it can give you other bonuses like defensive and other stats

>>717179291
thats what decimals are for anon
just an add a setting to reveal decimal values

>>717180031
Like I said - stacking % is easier.

>>717179909
The solution to that is to not have your buffs all be just x% more damage. Anon explicitly mentioned tabletop-based CRPGs and even in ones where you stack 30 buffs like the owlcat Pathfinder games said buffs are often much more creative than just 10% more damage.

>>717179052 (OP)
Video games allow for much more precise calculations than TTRPGs because computers are faster than people. Small numbers mean less complicated math.
Video games, as a result, tend to go for more intricate combat systems with both flat and percentage-based calculations.

>>717180281
>Anon explicitly mentioned tabletop-based CRPGs
No he didn't, literally starts with an image of RuneScape, which would be a rare MMO with low numbers, but most MMOs or stuff like Diablo clones like to go into huge numbers. He only mentioned "DND route" of balancing things to be low.
>The solution to that is to not have your buffs all be just x% more damage.
But it's EASIER to have those buffs to be exactly that. Devs can just slap the % increase on everything, calculate if the numbers are roughly what they want them to be at the end, and call it a day. They don't have to worry if something with +1 damage vs rare 10% damage on something else can break the balance at some point in the game. Or the other way around, they don't have to worry that +1 damage from some early skill gets completely useless at some point, because they made it 10%, so either your base damage is 100, 1000 or 1000000, it's always gonna be relevant.

>>717180225
Its not though. I mean yeah youve claimed it but youve not explained why

>>717180782
So if your base damage is 10, you have 10% extra damage, boom, you deal 11 damage.
What you want is for 2% damage to be 10.2 damage, which is why you want to inflate it to 102 damage. Which is retarded to begin with

>>717179052 (OP)
lower numbers are a balance nightmare for horizontal progression
higher numbers let them micro tweak shit around and throw in number variance to keep your ass averages and from minmaxing too efficiently.

>>717180008
>can hit between 1-1000
this dude running lightning build lmaooooo

How do you calculate 30% damage reduction when you deal 4 dmg?

>>717182053
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Floor_and_ceiling_functions

>>717181753
>which is why you want
I don't want to. The devs want. Majority of players who like "number big" want. You asked why they do that, I just explained why, duh.

>be me
>13 years old
>all of my friends play Runescape
>after school
>gonna hang out with a friend at my house
>proudly show how my character can one-shot a Goblin
>he starts laughing
>the next day he makes fun of me in class
Fuck you, Dennis

>>717182126
How do you tell 20% damage resistance from 30% damage resistance when you deal 4 dmg?

>>717182861
4 * 0.7 =2,8
4 * 0.8 =3,2

So either you round them to the nearest integer (3) or you floor them (2 for 30% and 3 for 20%) or you ceiling them (3 for 30%, 4 for 20%)

If you think thats retarded maybe the concept of % damage reduction is retarded.

>>717181779
>he doesnt gamble every single hit
you will never understand my dopamine

>>717182053
You use a float value rather than an integer. It doesn't matter for a computer

>>717185673
How is hitting an enemy with 10 hp for 3.84 any better than hitting an enemy with 1000 hp for 384?

>>717182783
Fuck Dennis, we're proud of you

>>717185936
It's functionally identical for a computer

>>717185936
Human brains aren't designed to think about numbers higher than 100, it all blends together at scales higher than that.

>>717187595
Nah, it's easier to think of 384 than 3,84, because your brain still considers 1HP the lowest value, and that 0,84 is wild.
What you don't want to think about is 3840000000

>>717179052 (OP)
There is a similar example where a house-cat in DnD is more likely to kill a commoner than vice versa because 1 damage is a lot to both but the cat has much better evasion.

>>717179648
i don't mind numbers but after a certain point i can't even tell if i'm doing more damage because i've hit the millions and i can't even count the number before the next one shows up

>>717188157
>sets a swarm on you when you have no torch or alchemist fire
>your wizard doesn't have a single aoe spell
nothin personell kid...

>>717179273
because you're too stupid to understand percentages. you're never going to go from 1 damage to 1.1 damage. naturally you go to 2 damage. you literally increased your damage by 100%. now, if you do 100 damage, and you can increase it to 110, it still feels like a normal number, and you ARE more powerful, but not so dramatically that you fucked the balance.
>>717179648
percentage-wise, yes its the same, but part of it isnt "visual feedback" as much as processing too many characters in a unit. there is a very real reason why roman numerals are structured the way they are. people arent very good at processing numbers greater than 3 or 4 characters. thats also why imperial measurements are all about multiplying/dividing by 3 and 4.

>>717189623
>because you're too stupid to understand percentages. you're never going to go from 1 damage to 1.1 damage. naturally you go to 2 damage. you literally increased your damage by 100%. now, if you do 100 damage, and you can increase it to 110, it still feels like a normal number, and you ARE more powerful, but not so dramatically that you fucked the balance.
You are the retard. Going from 1 to 2 is genuinely good balancing.

At first you deal 1 damage and enemies have 3 health. Then you deal 2 damage and enemies have 5 health. And so on. Your damage increases twofold but so does the health of enemies. And eventually you'll be going from 35 to 36 which is nowhere near as impactful.

Going from 100 to 110 is not fun at all and it's the hack dev's way of balancing by just not balancing at all

>be a mathematician
>know that for the purposes of a game there is no difference between 1, 100 or 1000000 other than where the comma is
I'm too smart for this shit

>>717179291
>>717180048
this but reserve decimal values exclusively for shit like DoTs so it doesn't snowball

>>717189772
>the hack dev's way of balancing by just not balancing at all
meanwhile:
>Your damage increases twofold but so does the health of enemies.
so nothing really changes
lol
lmao even

The first time I hit for a 10 in runescape (that's double digits) I thought I was such a fucking badass that I took a screenshot of me hitting 10 on a varrock guard and I made it my msn messenger profile pic

>>717189623
I dont want to deal 1.1 damage and i dont want to deal 110 damage either. Just balance the game where 1,2,3,4,5,6 makes sense. Its not hard, plenty of games have done it

>>717190992
the game either stagnates where nothing changes, or increases are so monumental that it devastates balance. also, theres no room for nuance.

>>717192476
Im not sure what you mean. Do you games that apply that system all stagnated, or do you mean generally games with that system stagnate? What is your proof if you mean the second one?

>>717190491
zased

kill all big numbers fags

>>717185969
th-thanks

>>717179052 (OP)
Dragon Quest games typically start from low single digit damage numbers and never goes beyond low triple digit if I remember correctly

>>717179052 (OP)
The entire thread is full of pseuds. The real answer is because any game where the damage calculations involve division or multiplication will break at low numbers, where you'll have ugly breakpoints where nothing happens even though a stat went up. Even D&D generally doesn't have %damage resistance until high levels where everyone's numbers are in the hundreds.
If your numbers are in 100-1000 range you can have a defence stat that reduces your damage taken by 57% and it all works out, or have an item that boosts your damage by 14% and nothing is wasted.

Damage at the beginning of a game shouldnt be 1, it also shouldnt be 100-200, it should be 5-15

>>717179291
Dots on small number are best done when it just adds +1 damage every X triggers.

>>717198364
This is actually retarded, why shouldnt it be 1?

>>717199868
coz my dads works at nintendo