Give Hammer Weapons More Puncture Damage.

[Kaokasalis]

I really dont see why the weapons in the category hammers are mostly Impact damage. Historically, blunt weapons such as maces or warhammers were designed in way to be effective against armor. Especially maces that had flanges such as what the Magistar has. Even the Fragor were good against Grineer before damage 2.0 because it dealt a damage type called "Physics Impact" which did not factor in armor migration.

 

The majority of melee weapons deal mostly slash damage and after that we have impact weapons. Puncture damage has the lowest amount of melee weapons and its really a shame.

 

I suggest increasing the puncture damage on all weapons in the hammer category to at least match the impact damage while changing the Magistar to a puncture focused weapon instead seeing as it has flanges.

[Tali]

The reason why they are good against armor is that when it hit ex: a plate armor, it will bend inwards and crushing/suffocating user. It may or may not penetrate the armor based on what type of armor it is and what type of mace/hammer used.

[RafaelFuchs]

The weapons you named dealt with heavy armor via impact (blunt force trauma). Flanges were intended to cause deeper dents in the metal to cause more permanent damage to the armor. The deep indents would restrict movement more and possibly cause more harm to the wearer. You'd need quite the force to dent thick armor like the gineer are seen wearing. Armor of the 12th century and such was quite thin and was commonly under 3mm (not accounting for angling).

 

Also, why is impact damage so weak against flesh in warframe? I never understood that. Blunt trauma is much more effective than they give it credit for. 

[Kaokasalis]

The weapons you named dealt with heavy armor via impact (blunt force trauma). Flanges were intended to cause deeper dents in the metal to cause more permanent damage to the armor. The deep indents would restrict movement more and possibly cause more harm to the wearer. You'd need quite the force to dent thick armor like the gineer are seen wearing. Armor of the 12th century and such was quite thin and was commonly under 3mm (not accounting for angling).

 

Also, why is impact damage so weak against flesh in warframe? I never understood that. Blunt trauma is much more effective than they give it credit for.  

I dont exactly think a Tenno would have problems denting Grineer armor considering some of the feats we can perform with our melee attacks.

[Autongnosis]

The problem lies in the fact that Damage 2.0 hit Impact damage with a hammer. Basically it's the only phisical damage type that will have a negative modifier against the majority of the enemies you face in three out of four factions...

The whole damage system should be reworked a bit imho - like how magnetic is so bad, gas just the same, corrosive is the god of damage types because it has huge bonuses and almost no downsides while radiation (supposed to be the counterpart of corrosive) is a S#&$ on everything that isn't a Phorid or an Alloy guy...

[Cyborg-Rox]

You realize the icon for Impact Damage is a hammer, right? It literally cannot be more fitting.

[motorfirebox]

Impact damage needs to be improved. It's weak on almost everything.

[RafaelFuchs]

I don't exactly think a Tenno would have problems denting Grineer armor considering some of the feats we can perform with our melee attacks.

True, but impact covers more than just the items they swing. A lot of guns are heavy in impact damage too.  

[Kaokasalis]

True, but impact covers more than just the items they swing. A lot of guns are heavy in impact damage too.  

This is about Hammers not guns. Nor am i asking impact damage to be changed. As for guns their impact damage could make sense as the rounds they fire might have been designed to inflict harm on such shields. For "hammers" such as the Magistar at least its different as its design in history was used to damage armor.

[TheBrsrkr]

Impact attacks the armor, not the person inside. Crushed armor is a hindrance and doesn't protect the wearer as effectively as it should. And impact isn't "weak" against everything. It's average against everything which makes it seem weak because elemental bonuses blowing it out of the water, while highly enough weapons damage anyway renders the drawbacks obsolete.

Blunt force trauma is highly overrated and is much more difficult to apply to people than puncture or slash. If you apply the same force to, say, an ice pick as you do to a hammer, you can do much more damage. Even more so with a knife. It's not udeless, but it is tge least efficient.

[KotoKuraken]

The problem lies in the fact that Damage 2.0 hit Impact damage with a hammer. Basically it's the only phisical damage type that will have a negative modifier against the majority of the enemies you face in three out of four factions...

The whole damage system should be reworked a bit imho - like how magnetic is so bad, gas just the same, corrosive is the god of damage types because it has huge bonuses and almost no downsides while radiation (supposed to be the counterpart of corrosive) is a S#&$ on everything that isn't a Phorid or an Alloy guy...

Uhh, radiation goes with Viral. It's corrosive and blast or viral and radiation

[Autongnosis]

Uhh, radiation goes with Viral. It's corrosive and blast or viral and radiation

Uhm, yeah so? I don't really see the relevance. Radiation is the countepart of Corrosive as in it covers the other type of armour (alloy instead of ferrite) and the other type of infested special health (sinus instead of fossil). The problem is that corrosive gets a marginal malus against shields for the trouble, while Radiation gets a frigging -75% versus Fossil on top of another malus versus shields

 

EDIT. out with the wrong stuff :|

Edited November 22, 2015 by Autongnosis

[Kaokasalis]

Uhm, yeah so? I don't really see the relevance. Radiation is the countepart of Corrosive as in it covers the other type of armour (alloy instead of ferrite) and the other type of infested special health (sinus instead of fossil). The problem is that corrosive gets a marginal malus against shields for the trouble, while Radiation gets a frigging -75% versus Fossil AND Ferrite (the Ferrite one being even worse considering it increases the armour of the enemy by 75% before calculating the damage, on top of the fact that it reduces the raw damage by 75%)

What are you talking about? Radiation only have a -75% vs Fossil, its has no modifier on Ferrite armor. The only other minus modifier Radiation has is against Shield (-25%) and Infested (-50%).

[superbot34]

What are you talking about? Radiation only have a -75% vs Fossil, its has no modifier on Ferrite armor. The only other minus modifier Radiation has is against Shield (-25%) and Infested (-50%).

he said "the counterpart of corrosive" and literally said alloy armor after that. Radiation does +50% to sinew.

 

he was wrong about the -75% against ferrite though. 

Also to the OP, try an acrid modded for gas damage. you will get hundreds of damage ticks going at once if you fire fast enough. Gas is a fun damage type and actually very useful as a syndicate proc. 

[Autongnosis]

Yeah i... Well... Duh. No idea why i wrote that D:

[Kaokasalis]

he said "the counterpart of corrosive" and literally said alloy armor after that. Radiation does +50% to sinew.

 

he was wrong about the -75% against ferrite though. 

Also to the OP, try an acrid modded for gas damage. you will get hundreds of damage ticks going at once if you fire fast enough. Gas is a fun damage type and actually very useful as a syndicate proc. 

And i was talking about the minus modifiers only, not the plus ones. Also what does the Acrid or gas damage have anything to do with what i suggested for the hammmers?

 

Can we please not derail the thread.

[taiiat]

changing Damage Types to fit some head canon you have is rather silly.

 

we could simply add more Hammers, some being Puncture focused Hammers.

which for example, if you were to simply swing this Hammer backwards, it would be a Puncture Hammer! :D

 

 

Melee Swings could even go with this, some swings using the opposing side of the Hammer, and applying different Damage Types!

then we could even have Hammers that are like two Weapons in one, with two different Hammer faces that are both used.

[DSpite]

I want to know what the "personal agenda" in wanting more puncture on a hammer is. It's a hammer. By the very definition it's a blunt force damage weapon, and he wants Puncture?

 

"The damage ratio is important for physical damage status effects, because the game weights the likelihood of which proc occurs according to physical damage ratio"

 

Please feel free to explain WHY you want Puncture on a weapon that should NOT be puncture, other then the reason YOU want them for.

[Kaokasalis]

I want to know what the "personal agenda" in wanting more puncture on a hammer is. It's a hammer. By the very definition it's a blunt force damage weapon, and he wants Puncture?

 

"The damage ratio is important for physical damage status effects, because the game weights the likelihood of which proc occurs according to physical damage ratio"

 

Please feel free to explain WHY you want Puncture on a weapon that should NOT be puncture, other then the reason YOU want them for.

Theres two things to consider here. One is what blunt weapons were used against and the second is how that translate to game design. Its true that a hammer being impact damage makes sense to due to it being a blunt weapon but the problem lies in the fact that blunt weapons were used against armor as the force of their blows could bypass the armor. However currently impact damage dont reflect that. Its weak against flesh and have no bonus against armor. However rather than changing the damage types which could cause alot more work than necessary, wouldnt it be easier to change their damage type? Even if the weapons damage dont match the nature of the weapons shape, wouldnt it be better to have the weapon match the purpose it were made for which were to fight armored opponents in this case being the Grineer. Also some maces were capable of penetrating armor. Not penetrative in a stabbing way but in a crushing way. Some Maces had flanges that gave them better traction so rather than just glancing off after a blow the mace could better "bite" in. The flanges let the mace excert more force which could dent the armor and piercing it.

[DSpite]

Theres two things to consider here. One is what blunt weapons were used against and the second is how that translate to game design. Its true that a hammer being impact damage makes sense to due to it being a blunt weapon but the problem lies in the fact that blunt weapons were used against armor as the force of their blows could bypass the armor. However currently impact damage dont reflect that. Its weak against flesh and have no bonus against armor. However rather than changing the damage types which could cause alot more work than necessary, wouldnt it be easier to change their damage type? Even if the weapons damage dont match the nature of the weapons shape, wouldnt it be better to have the weapon match the purpose it were made for which were to fight armored opponents in this case being the Grineer. Also some maces were capable of penetrating armor. Not penetrative in a stabbing way but in a crushing way. Some Maces had flanges that gave them better traction so rather than just glancing off after a blow the mace could better "bite" in. The flanges let the mace excert more force which could dent the armor and piercing it.

 

I sometimes use examples of things as comparison, but I try to only do that to give a baseline, not for like, a RL example, because at the core, this is a just a game.

 

I checked your profile, and yea, kind of impressive you have played every single thing on the list, including Excal Prime, so it does mean an old account, but at the same time you have barely any use on the "hammers", so why exactly are you so interested in this change?

 

The fact that "Hammers" 500 years ago might of been used against "armour" is irrelevant. Pretty sure no one had Energy Shields either. Might as well ask why we don't design giant hammers to kill Tanks right now. We use explosive shells with specialized penetrators or weird things like these

 

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/CBU-97_Sensor_Fuzed_Weapon

 

which are my favorite weapon to date.

 

The hammers here are mechanically designed for knockdown AND deal impact to help with shielded targets, I have ZERO idea still why on earth you want to move the weapon type into another category, so "no", it does not "make sense" to me.

[Kaokasalis]

I sometimes use examples of things as comparison, but I try to only do that to give a baseline, not for like, a RL example, because at the core, this is a just a game.

 

I checked your profile, and yea, kind of impressive you have played every single thing on the list, including Excal Prime, so it does mean an old account, but at the same time you have barely any use on the "hammers", so why exactly are you so interested in this change?

 

The fact that "Hammers" 500 years ago might of been used against "armour" is irrelevant. Pretty sure no one had Energy Shields either. Might as well ask why we don't design giant hammers to kill Tanks right now. We use explosive shells with specialized penetrators or weird things like these

 

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/CBU-97_Sensor_Fuzed_Weapon

 

which are my favorite weapon to date.

 

The hammers here are mechanically designed for knockdown AND deal impact to help with shielded targets, I have ZERO idea still why on earth you want to move the weapon type into another category, so "no", it does not "make sense" to me.

Oh please... dont tell me you are going to say i cannot post feedback for a weapon type because i only started using another weapon type i find more fun than the Tipedo, around one week and a half ago? Of the three hammer weapons we have theres absolutely little to no difference between them at all. The only so called difference they have is that the impact damage keeps getting higher and higher from hammer to hammer which is barely any difference at all. Im trying to see some variety assigned to the hammers or at very least the Magistar in a type of weapons that is already very niched.

 

And the fact that blunt weapons were used against armor 500 years ago is not irrelevant at all. I dont see whats wrong with giving them a purpose they were orginally made for in term of the game design. Saying that they shouldnt is like saying swords shouldnt cut, yet clearly they do in the game. Besides the Fragor already had a armor ignoring damage before damage 2.0 so its not like DE never considered it in the first place.

Edited November 23, 2015 by Ory_Hara

[motorfirebox]

I don't think the issue is hammers per se. I think the issue is the undesirability of impact damage overall.

[hukurokuju5]

wut is logix

[RafaelFuchs]

Oh please... dont tell me you are going to say i cannot post feedback for a weapon type because i only started using another weapon type i find more fun than the Tipedo, around one week and a half ago? Of the three hammer weapons we have theres absolutely little to no difference between them at all. The only so called difference they have is that the impact damage keeps getting higher and higher from hammer to hammer which is barely any difference at all. Im trying to see some variety assigned to the hammers or at very least the Magistar in a type of weapons that is already very niched.

 

And the fact that blunt weapons were used against armor 500 years ago is not irrelevant at all. I dont see whats wrong with giving them a purpose they were orginally made for in term of the game design. Saying that they shouldnt is like saying swords shouldnt cut, yet clearly they do in the game. Besides the Fragor already had a armor ignoring damage before damage 2.0 so its not like DE never considered it in the first place.

The thing is though, you're basically using an argument like this: "A hammer can crush a can. Why can't it crush a tank?" It's completely illogical. Saying "because tenno" isn't a valid argument either. By that logic, all weapons melee weapons should be heavy in puncture damage because tenno can just butter anything. 

 

If you wanted to add a new hammer that was focused into puncture, then I'm sure many more people (including myself) would agree with you. We'd probably would even agree if you wanted to buff the impact damage type slightly so it wasn't so weak. 

[letir]

Real battlehammers use edges and spikes to penetrate armor, and was quite effective in this role. Stupid "pure impact" hammers without specified "battle" part should be used on construction sites, against nails and such.