A question about damage value

[Rikimarox2]

Easy question, shouldn't be that hard to answer I think.

In a game I'm indexing, there is barely any lore, so the only way to get feats is from gameplay. In game, there are damage values.

Even the weakest swords with a damage of 5 can destroy two crates and generate 0.001 ton of tnt, Ie wall level.

Would it be okay to like multiply that value by 10 when another weapon can do 50 damage? Ie turn that 0.001 tnt to 0.01 (Small Building level)

This is a really important question, and can boost the main character, especially considering even the weakest weapons, even punches can destroy two crates.

 

[Thelastmlg]

No, unless something points towards higher damage being a linear and consistent boost, it is just gameplay mechanics

 

[Rikimarox2]

unless something points towards higher damage being a linear and consistent boost.

What do you exactly mean by this?

 

[StekFence]

No, unless something points towards higher damage being a linear and consistent boost, it is just gameplay mechanics

What would be an example of that

 

[Thelastmlg]

Don't have a example because it never seems to happen, but if I were to make one, the game would consistently acknowledge that damage is linear, like a sword that deals 100 damage being 100x stronger than a dagger that does one, would also help if chip damage wasn't thing because it is what screws up most gameplay feats.

 

[Rikimarox2]

I mean, that's how the game works?

A monster has 30 hp, fists only deal one damage, while a sword deals 12 damage. The game specifically tells you about the damage value btw, like, the stats show how much damage your sword does. There isn't a huge difference in terms of power between weapon, with the highest being like 60-70 damage, and that's like the high-end game legendary swords.

But if you meant as in, statements In game telling us that swords are X times stronger, then no, the game barely, and I mean barely has any story. It's 90% gameplay 10% lore.

 

[Antoniofer]

You can say that an attack of damage 12 is more harmful than an attack of damage 3, but you can't say that the strongest attack generate x4 times more energy, as you can't guarantee the relationship is linear.

Plus, damage may not refer to destructivity by itself, like, for example, a dagger have damage 2, and a rain of daggers have damage 10; even tho AP is not accumulative, a rain of daggers will naturally cause more damage than one single dagger.

 

[Rikimarox2]

Ah okay. Well, that's a rip. I guess we are gonna stick with Wall level.

Still, just another question, but say that there is a weapon in game that deals 10 damage, but its range is a lot. It can destroy 10 barrels at a time, generating 9-A levels of energy due to its range.

Another weapon, let's say a great sword, has a higher damage than it, but shorter range. Would it be okay to say that the great sword is also 9-A due to having more damage than that weapon?

 

[Antoniofer]

That's AoE. There's a difference between an attack that cause x amount of damage equally in a x meters radius, and an explosion (a realistic one) that destroy a wooden barrel at a distance of x meters.

 

[Rikimarox2]

Ah okay, so we can't scale that. Rip.

Well, wall level it is. Thanks for answering!

 

[Sus]

you need to prove that the damage is linear not exponential