Hello all,

If somebody has an opinion which of the choises would be best, do vote and we'll see if we shall do something. And if somebody comes up with an idea outside the options, feel free to suggest it and we'll shoot it down. :)

Some clarifications

The first part
The options 1 and 2 are the way things are currently done, where you get the same message for the same damage-rolls regardless whether the opponent resisted the damage or not. With options 3 &4 you would always score tiny hits against resisters, so the absolute messages would vary depending on mobs, but you could see the actual effects reflected in the messages.

The second part.
The options 1 & 3 are like they currently are, if you hit alot of damage to a big mob, it will always be just small marks, as the damage is puny compared to the current hps of the mob. Also, even small hits will show as heart tissues when killing bunnies.
With options 2 & 4 the messages would partly depend on damage vs hps, like now, but also partly about the actual damage done. So, a big crit against a big mob could cause some noticeable change in the message if it wasn't resisted that is. The situation wouldn't really change with bunnies in this option either.

Option 5.
Your <slash> <barely scrapes> monster <making heart tissue fly> = first part depends on hit damage and has a extra part about damage that got through after prot+resist // end part depends on damage vs. hps.

-Era of idling

This is good but what would be great is adding the weapon name to the attack.
ie

You cut rabbit with your sword of doom causing large scratches. (cut == first part, large scratches == second part, sword of doom == weapon in hand)

Cheers,
Askan

How about like this:

You <cut> <Badmonster> with your <Blade of UltimateKilling>, the blade hits with <full force>.

cut=base damage you do
badmonster=who you hit
blade of blaablaa=weapon used
full force=damage that goes through

I personally don't care if limbs fly off (or for the other useless messages that reflect mobs hp)

The above example is helpful in several ways, it shows what your basedam is roughly (cut), who you hit and with what, and what the impact of the blow is to the monster.

The problem with the above example is, that it doesn't separate different forms of damage the weapon does. Eg. if the blade of ultimatekilling did 50% phys and 50% fire, it would be hard to determine what mob resists.
The skill combat damage analysis could be made passive skill, but that would make meleehit messages extremely spammy and that wouldn't be good.

The new option suggested (You <damage that goes through> <mob> blaalaa) is kinda the same I suggest, but my suggestion includes basedam.

Whatever the decisions may be, the useless spam messages (again, limbs that fly off) should be removed, it's not logical at all that hits that do same damage cause small wounds at start and heart tissue to fly off at end. There's already 'scan' command to see how the mob is doing healthwise.

Just my two pennies worth,

I was considering another possiblility of what might be included, either as well as or instead of other messages.
I think I would quite like to see a measure of my relative success rather than simply a measure of my gross (pre resists etc) damage.

e.g. A damage message could be formed from relative success, net damage (actually taken by mob) and then some message reflecting the effect on the mob (perhaps a mix of dam/vs max hp or dam vs current hp).

You <success message> <net damage> monster <effect>

Success messages would be something like:

pathetically
weakly
softly
strongly
savagely
deftly
effectively
powerfully
incisively
awesomely
diabolically

Basic net damage messages could be simplified versions of current
messages:

spank
smack
slap
strike
boot
kick
sock
stomp
blow
uppercut
beat
headbut
dragon-punch
triple-kick
ram
rend

Then the result message would be something like:

You softly blow bunny causing a limb to fly off

or, where there is a bit more resistance, something like:

You effectively smack adamantium golem creating a nasty bruise

and for a mob with loads of hp:

You incisively stomp mammoth making small marks

Obviously, indication of what weapon is used can be included.

I just see this possiblilty as an alternative to being presented with the triplet of <gross damage> <net damage> <effect>, which I think makes a little less sense. If batmud is going to use decriptions rather than just numbers, I think that the implication is that the hit message is meant to reflect the experience of the character in the battle, not the person at the keyboard. I just don't like the idea that a tear, shred, tatter message could actually mean doing next to no damage at all.

However, I expect that such an idea is not going to be popular becuase players would probably prefer to see a direct measure of how hard they hit, rather than a relative measure of how well they are hitting and a measure of the net damage they do to a particular mob.

You could combine both I suppose:

Your <success> <gross> <net> <mob> <effect>

Your deft slash deeply wounds infant badger mutilating internal tissue
Your pathetic spank nastily bruises bunny snapping a bone
Your awesome shred barely scrapes huge stone golem making small marks.


And for sucky tanks:

Your diabolic thump pulverises small fly
Your awesome bump slams yogi the bear breaking bones
Your strong jostle lightly knocks mountain goat making small marks



Tim

Use your eyes? You are repeating almost 1-to-1 what era has already said about option 5.And btw, each attack type has already "simplified" damage messages. If you give, dunno, like five different damage messages, that would be quite booring to watch excatly same messages over and over because there so big leaps inside of damage ranges.

Sorry, I don't want to be rude but, if you actually read both postings (carefully), you will see that there is a significant difference.

Yes, this is similar to Era's option 5. However, my suggestion does not include a direct representation of gross damage, one character's "deflty" would not be the same gross damage as another's "deftly". Also, the kind of message is different, a hit type message (cut, gash, slash) would be used for the net damage rather than some new message. I think this makes sense because most hit messages seem to indicate damage more than actual style of strike (like say MA messages).

The difference would appear to be between:

Your <slash> <barely scrapes> monster <making heart tissue fly>
and
You <incisively> <gash> monster <making heart tissue fly>


From looking at the current poll results, it seems that quite a lot of players prefer the net damage (damage after resists etc) to gross damage (this is the third option of the poll). My idea, for what it's worth, included something that the third option would not provide.

Whether this is worth atually having or not I'm not sure, but consider the following using the third option of the poll:

A few rounds of battle pass, and, as is quite likely, you only hit a few times:

You lightly cut guard causing a small scratch
You gash guard making small marks
You lighty cut guard causing a small scratch
You cut guard causing a small scratch

The question is, is this guard resisting your damage or have you been a bit unlucky?

If relative success is added:

You softly lightly cut guard causing a small scratch
You wealky gash guard making small marks
You softly lighty cut guard causing a small scratch
You strongly cut guard causing a small scratch

Or (if the guard is actually resisting your attacks):

You effectively lightly cut guard causing a small scratch
You deftly gash guard making small marks
You effectively lighty cut guard causing a small scratch
You powerfully cut guard causing a small scratch

OK. That's pretty much all my suggestion concerns. With NET damage you would still be able to easily (and quickly) see whether you are being unlucky or the best net damage you can hope for has already been delivered.

This would obviously be less useful for the fith option that Era presented, but you could still use it as I illustrated.

In terms of "simplified" messages, I did actually include some examples, and my suggested simplification basically involves removing the "solidly", "lightly", "horribly" etc bit of the hit message, not having less categories. This would probably mean thinking of a few more words to use for the different categories.

solidly slash => scrape
lightly cut => cut
cut => slice
etc